Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 2 April, 2026
CRM-M-61245-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
157
CRM-M-61245-2025
Date of decision: 02.04.2026
Ranjit Singh through SPA
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY
Present: Ms. Pragti Kumari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, DAG, Punjab.
AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner, who is an accused in case FIR No.14 dated 14.02.2012 under Sections 323,324,427,452,148,149 IPC registered at P.S Goraya, District Jalandhar, through his Special Power of attorney Holder Surjit Kaur-mother of petitioner, seeking quashing of order dated 15.11.2014 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned JMIC, Phillaur vide which petitioner has been declared as "proclaimed offender".
2. Two fold submissions have been raised by learned counsel; 02.04.2026 firstly, that requirement of Sub Section (2) of Section 82 Cr.P.C was not complied with in letter and spirit inasmuch as the Executing Constable did not read out proclamation publicly in some conspicuous place of the town or village where petitioner resides.
Second leg of submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. Falsity of the case set up by the complainant is apparent from the fact that the other accused, who faced the trial, were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. That apart, complainant MANOJ KUMARhas also entered into compromise with the present petitioner, copy of which has 2026.04.09 21:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order CRM-M-61245-2025 2 been placed on record. It is further the submission of learned counsel that quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise has also been filed and the same is listed before this Court.
3. Notice of motion.
4. At the asking of the Court, Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, DAG Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Mr. Dishant, Advocate has appeared for the complainant and filed his Vakalatnama. He has endorsed the factum of compromise.
5. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to a judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-23777-2020 titled Sonu V/s. State of Haryana, decided on 06.10.2020, wherein the essential requirements of section 82 Cr.P.C. for issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder and declaring him as proclaimed person/offender were discussed as under:
(i) Prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court is sine qua non for issuance and publication of the proclamation and the Court has to first issue warrant of arrest against the person concerned. (See Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561).
(ii) There must be a report before the Court that the person against whom warrant was issued had absconded or had been concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest could not be executed against him. However, the Court is not bound to take evidence in this regard before issuing a Proclamation under Section 82 (1) of the Cr.P.C.. (See Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561).
(iii) The Court cannot issue the Proclamation as a matter of course because the Police is asking for it. The Court must be prima facie satisfied that the person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence. (See Bishundayal Mahton and others Vs. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366 and Devender Singh Negi Vs.State of U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783).
(iv) The requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the proclamation requiring such person to appear on such date at the specified place.
Such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of issuance and MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 21:52 I attest to the accuracy and publication of the proclamation. (See Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. State of authenticity of this order CRM-M-61245-2025 3 Mysore : 1969 Cri LJ 826 and Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339).
(v) Where the period between issuance and publication of the proclamation and the specified date of hearing is less than thirty days, the accused cannot be declared a proclaimed person/offender and the proclamation has to be issued and published again. (See Dilbagh Singh Vs. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166 and Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 550).
(vi) The Proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in Section 82 (2) of the Cr.P.C.. For publication the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house. The three sub-clauses (a)-(c) in Section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C. are conjunctive and not disjunctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are proved. (See Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368). Where the Court so orders a copy of the proclamation has to be additionally published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which the accused ordinarily resides. Advisably, proclamation has to be issued with four copies so that one each of the three copies of the proclamation may be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides, to some conspicuous place of such town or village and to some conspicuous part of the Court-house and report regarding publication may be made on the fourth copy of the proclamation. Additional copy will be required where the proclamation is also required to be published in the newspaper.
(vii) Statement of the serving officer has to be recorded by the Court as to the date and mode of publication of the proclamation. (See Birad Dan Vs. State :
1958 CriLJ 965).
(viii) The Court issuing the proclamation has to make a statement in writing in its order that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day in a manner specified in Section 82(2)(i) of the Cr.P.C.. Such statement in writing by the Court is declared to be conclusive evidence that the requirements of Section 82 have been complied with and that the proclamation was published on such day. (See Birad Dan Vs. State : 1958 CriLJ 965).
(xi) The conditions specified in Section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C. for the publication of a Proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any non-compliance therewith cannot be cured as an 'irregularity' and renders the Proclamation and MANOJ KUMAR proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity. (See Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu 2026.04.09 21:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order CRM-M-61245-2025 4 Vs. State of U.P. and another : 1994 CriLJ 1783 and Pal Singh Vs. The State :
1955 CriLJ 318).
6. Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, it is, thus, clear that the Executing Constable did not adhere to the procedure so prescribed under Sub Section (2) of Section 82 Cr.P.C, when he visited the residence of petitioner. From the statement of the Constable, it can be inferred that he only affixed copy of the proclamation at the outer door of the house of the accused, a copy at public place and a copy on the notice board of the court. Admittedly, he did not read the publication at some conspicuous place of the town or village where the petitioner resides.
For want of procedural requirement, the publication cannot be said to be in sync with the spirit of Section 82 Cr.P.C. That apart, some of the accused who faced trial have already been acquitted of the charges levelled against them. A copy of the said judgment appended along with the petition has also been looked into. Moreover, complainant has also amicably settled the dispute with petitioner accused vide compromise deed dated 10.10.2025 (P-9).
In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned order dated 15.11.2014, whereby the petitioner was declared Proclaimed Person, is set aside.
7. Present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court concerned to face the trial within a period of 15 days. He shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner would also submit specific undertaking/affidavit that he will keep appearing during the proceedings of the trial in future and the proceedings would not be delayed because of his conduct. The trial Court may impose any other condition that it may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
MANOJ KUMAR2026.04.09 21:52
8. I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order Before parting with this order, it is made abundantly clear that in case CRM-M-61245-2025 5 the petitioner does not adhere to the aforesaid, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed without any reference to this Court.
02.04.2026 ( AARADHNA SAWHNEY )
manoj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.04.09 21:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order