Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for TASSADUK RASUL KHAN VS AHMAD HUSAIN...
Checking relevance for S. R. Bommai VS Union Of India...
Checking relevance for IN RE: ARTICLE 370 OF THE CONSTITUTION VS . ...
Checking relevance for Dhirendra Nath Gorai: Subal Chandra Nath Saha VS Sudhir Chandra Ghosh...
Checking relevance for Krishna Kumar Singh VS State Of Bihar...
Checking relevance for State Through Central Bureau Of Investigation VS Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar...
State Through Central Bureau Of Investigation VS Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar - 1997 4 Supreme 490 : A court cannot pass a proclamation order against a complainant solely for the purpose of producing the complainant before the police in aid of investigation. The court''''s power under Section 73 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to issue a warrant of arrest and subsequently a proclamation is limited to compelling the appearance of a person before the court, not before the police. The issuance of a warrant under Section 73 is not permissible for the production of an accused before the police during investigation, as the court''''s role is judicial and not investigative. The court may only issue a warrant for appearance before itself, and any request for police custody must be judicially exercised under Section 167(3) of the Code, based on materials placed before it, not as a matter of course.Checking relevance for Gulshan @ Gulchaman VS State of Punjab...
Checking relevance for Sandeep Singh Gill VS State of Punjab...
Sandeep Singh Gill VS State of Punjab - 2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 1000 : A court can pass a proclamation order against a complainant only if the complainant is an accused person in the case and has absconded or is concealing himself so that a warrant of arrest cannot be executed. The court must first issue a warrant of arrest, be prima facie satisfied that the accused has absconded, and follow the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, including publication of the proclamation in specified ways and ensuring a minimum of 30 days'''' notice. The court cannot issue a proclamation as a matter of course upon police request. In this case, the court quashed the proclamation order against the petitioner (who was an accused) due to procedural lapses, confirming that such orders are subject to strict compliance with statutory requirements. Therefore, while a court may pass a proclamation order against a complainant if they are also an accused and meet the legal criteria, the order is invalid if procedural requirements are not met.Checking relevance for Arun Tiwari @ Arun Kumar @ Mantu Tiwari, son of Lalmani Tiwari VS State of Jharkhand...
Checking relevance for Sandeep Kaur VS State of Punjab...
Sandeep Kaur VS State of Punjab - 2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 540 : A court can pass a proclamation order against a complainant only if it strictly complies with the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. These include: (i) issuance of a warrant of arrest prior to the proclamation; (ii) a prima facie finding that the person has absconded or is concealing themselves; (iii) specifying a date for appearance at least 30 clear days from the date of publication; (iv) public reading in a conspicuous place in the town/village where the accused resides; (v) affixing copies to the accused’s residence, a conspicuous public place, and the court-house; (vi) recording the statement of the serving officer regarding publication; and (vii) the court making a written statement in its order confirming due publication. Non-compliance with any of these mandatory provisions renders the proclamation and subsequent proceedings invalid and a nullity. Therefore, while the court has the power to issue a proclamation, it must follow all prescribed procedures without exception.Checking relevance for Sukhjinder Singh VS State of Punjab...
Sukhjinder Singh VS State of Punjab - 2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 1029 : The court can pass a proclamation order against a complainant only if the procedural requirements under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are strictly followed. These include: (1) prior issuance of a warrant of arrest; (2) a finding that the person has absconded or is concealing themselves so that the warrant cannot be executed; (3) publication of the proclamation in specified modes (public reading in a conspicuous place, affixing to the accused’s residence and court-house, and optionally in a local newspaper); (4) a mandatory period of at least 30 days between publication and the date for appearance; and (5) a written statement by the court confirming compliance with publication requirements. Failure to comply with any of these mandatory procedures renders the proclamation invalid and subject to quashing. In this case, the court quashed the proclamation because no valid service of summons or warrant was established, the petitioner had married the complainant and was living with her, and the procedural requirements were not met.Checking relevance for Amarjit Singh Doad VS State of Punjab...
Amarjit Singh Doad VS State of Punjab - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 3376 : A court can pass a proclamation order against a complainant only if the procedural requirements under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are strictly followed. These include: (1) prior issuance of a warrant of arrest; (2) a finding that the person has absconded or is concealing themselves so that the warrant cannot be executed; (3) the proclamation must be published in the manner specified under Section 82(2), which requires public reading in a conspicuous place, affixing to the accused’s residence or a public place, and affixing a copy to the court-house—these three conditions are conjunctive and must all be satisfied; (4) the specified date for appearance must be at least 30 days from the date of publication; and (5) the court must make a written statement confirming due publication, which is conclusive evidence. Failure to comply with any of these mandatory requirements renders the proclamation and subsequent proceedings a nullity. In this case, the court quashed the proclamation order because the petitioner was in Spain, had not been properly served, and the publication requirements were not met, demonstrating that the court cannot pass a valid proclamation order without strict adherence to these procedural safeguards.
