The declaration of a person as a proclaimed offender is a nullity if the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. are not cumulatively followed, particularly when the accused is residing abroad and their absence is not willful or deliberate.

1. Prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the impugned order dated 28.05.2024, Annexure P-9, passed learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra, whereby the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person.

2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was granted police bail, whereafter the matter was amicably settled, vide compromise dated 07.01.2021, and on the basis thereof, CRM-M-11337-2021 seeking quashing of FIR was also filed, wherein statements of the parties were recorded except him, as he was abroad and it was quashed qua other co-accused, vide order dated 21.09.2022. It was only due to miscommunication that he did not appear, however, went abroad for search of livelihood on 06.05.2022, regarding which copy of passport, Annexure P-3, is being referred. During this period, he was declared proclaimed person without following the procedure mandated under Sections 82 and 105 Cr.P.C. A further reference is made to a Notification issued by the Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs, IS Division-II:Legal Cell New Delhi, dated the 11th Feb, 2009, laying down comprehensive guidelines in this regard of reciprocal arrangements to be made by Central Government with the Foreign Governments with regard to the service of summons/warrants/judicial processes. The Ministry of Home Affairs has entered into Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty/Agreements with 22 countries which provide for serving of documents. Thus, the proclamation proceedings being in violation thereof are liable to be set aside. His passport has now expired, as has been stated in para 1 of the affidavit and he has applied for issuance of a fresh one, which shall take 3-4 months and in para 2 thereof, it has been undertaken that he shall appear to face the trial within a period of 4 months and would not leave India without permission of the Court, and thus, prays that one last opportunity may be granted, even if the same is subject to costs, to him to surrender within the aforesaid period and join the proceedings.

3. Notice of motion.

4. At the asking of the Court, submits that the order passed against the petitioner is legal and valid on account of the fact that he had absented from the proceedings before the trial Court without any just cause.

5. Heard.

6. In Gurbir Singh Mundi vs. State of Punjab and another CRM-M-49283-2021, decided on 16.12.2021, it was held that provisions of Section 82 (2) Cr.P.C. are to be mandatorily complied with cumulatively and not alternatively. The Court had quashed the order declaring the petitioner therein as proclaimed person on the ground that declaration was not read publicly in some conspicuous place of town or village, in which the accused ordinarily resides.

7. In Sonu vs. State of Haryana , 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 319, it was held that any non-compliance in the procedure prescribed in declaring a proclaimed person, cannot be treated as an irregularity but the same renders such proceedings a nullity.

8. In the case of Jasbir Kaur vs. State of Punjab and another , CRM-M-25115-2022, decided on 2.6.2022, since the petitioner therein was a Non Indian Resident residing in Canada and proclamation proceedings had been initiated while she was not in India, as such, the order of proclamation was set aside.

9. Similarly, in Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab and another , CRM-M-32011-2018, decided on 06.02.2020, noticing the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner relying on the photocopy of the passport (Annexure A-1) that he was was in Italy at the time of registration of FIR on 29.1