****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

1. Instant petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 482 Cr.P.C.), has been filed for seeking quashing of order dated 02.01.2013 (Annexure P-6), passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi, in FIR No.153, dated 13.12.2011, under Sections 494, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC [corresponding Sections 82 (1), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023], registered at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, Kapurthala, whereby, petitioner has been declared as a ‘Proclaimed Person’ allegedly without following the due procedure of law.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false and frivolous case has been registered against the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner has been residing in the USA since the year 2000, whereas, FIR in question came to be registered on 13.12.2011. Petitioner was never aware of the pendency of the present case, as she was never present in India.

Further submits that, prior to filing of the final report/challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C., an application was moved by the police for issuance of warrants of arrest against the petitioner. Thereafter, in due course, non-bailable warrants of arrest were also issued. Ultimately, when the non-bailable warrants were received back unexecuted, learned SDJM, Sultanpur Lodhi, vide order dated 26.10.2012 (Annexure P-4), expressed purported satisfaction that the presence of the petitioner could not be procured in an ordinary manner and thus, proceeded to issue proclamation under Sections 82 /83 Cr.P.C.

Thereafter, in due course of time, proceedings initiated under Sections 82 /83 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Sections 84/85 of the BNSS, 2023) culminated in the passing of order dated 02.01.2013 (Annexure P-6), whereby, petitioner was declared a 'Proclaimed Person'.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also apprises that, on two earlier occasions, petitioner approached this Court seeking quashing of the impugned order. The first petition, i.e. CRM-M-41034-2017, was filed by the petitioner along with other co-accused and was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.03.2022 (Annexure P-8).

Thereafter, petitioner, along with the co-accused, again filed another petition, i.e. CRM-M-39975-2024, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2025 (Annexure P-9), as the same had not been validly instituted. However, liberty was granted therein to file a fresh petition after complying with all the applicable rules.

Learned counsel thus argues that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that, even before passing of the impugned order, no steps were ever taken to effect service upon the petitioner in the USA in terms of Section 105 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 110 of the BNSS, 2023), which prescribes the procedure for service or execution of summons or warrants upon an accused residing in any country or place outside India.

It is, thus, contended that the absence of the petitioner was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to the reasons noticed here-above. Moreover, petitioner is willing to join the proceedings and undertakes to appear before the learned trial Court, if granted an opportunity, subject to any condition(s) that may be imposed by this Court.

4. On noticing the contention of petitioner’s counsel, this Court is also not required to examine the sustainability of the order vide which, petitioner was declared ‘proclaimed person’