Procedural Lapses: High Court Nixes 'Proclaimed Person' Tag Due to Statutory Non-Compliance

In a move reinforcing the necessity of strict procedural adherence, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside an order declaring an individual a "proclaimed person" in a long-standing Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act case.

The decision by Justice Aman Chaudhary highlights a critical check on the power of trial courts to label accused persons as absconders, emphasizing that the requirements of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) are mandatory rather than directory.

The Background: An Address Gone Cold

The petitioner, Hardev Singh, found himself labeled a "proclaimed person" on January 7, 2020, in a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the NI Act . The legal friction arose when court notices were sent to his former shop, M/s Thind Kheti Bari Centre , despite the petitioner having shuttered the business years prior in 2016.

The petitioner contended that he never received the summons because he had relocated to his residence in village Kahangarh Gharachon, and the service reports failed to reflect this change, instead relying on the defunct shop address. Seeking a second chance to face the prosecution, the petitioner expressed his full willingness to surrender and join the trial.

Legal Arguments: The Battle of Compliance

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the proclamation proceedings were fundamentally flawed due to the failure to properly serve notice. Conversely, the State counsel maintained that the order was legally sound, asserting that the petitioner had absented himself from proceedings without a just cause.

The "Mandatory" Standard

Justice Aman Chaudhary’s ruling leaned heavily on established precedents, notably the cases of Gurbir Singh Mundi and Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab .

The Court clarified that: 1. Provisions of Section 82(2) Cr.P.C. must be complied with cumulatively , not alternatively. 2. A court is legally obligated to record its satisfaction regarding the accused's status before initiating proclamation; failing to do so creates an "incurable illegality." 3. Non-compliance with the specific conditions—such as reading the proclamation in a conspicuous place—renders the proceeding a nullity.

Key Observations

The judgment offers a firm reminder of the judicial burden in ensuring due process:

• "Provisions of Section 82(2) Cr.PC. are to be mandatorily complied with cumulatively and not alternatively."
• "The Court is first required to record its satisfaction before issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and non-recording of the satisfaction itself makes such order suffering from incurable illegality."
• "Any non-compliance therewith cannot be cured as an ‘irregularity’ and renders the proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity."

The Verdict: A Conditional Opportunity

Finding that the petitioner’s absence was not willfully malicious and that his participation would expedite the trial, the Court set aside the impugned order dated January 7, 2020. Hardev Singh has been directed to surrender before the trial court on or before February 25, 2026.

Upon surrender, he is to be released on bail, provided he pays costs of Rs. 10,000 to the complainant and furnishes an undertaking that he will appear on every scheduled date of hearing. The Court further stipulated that the petitioner may not leave the country without prior judicial permission, signaling that while process must be fair, it remains firm.