Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shanti Devi vs State Of Punjab on 21 April, 2026
1
CRM-
CRM-M-39563-
39563-2025
150
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-39563-
39563-2025
Shanti Devi
....Petitioner
.Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
Date of Decision: April 21,
21, 2026
Date of Uploading: April 22,
22, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Mr. Sourabh Bedi,, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J.
Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing/ quashing setting aside of the impugned order dated 21.10.2023 (Annexure P--4)) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana,, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person person,, on the grounds of non-service service of summons to the petitioner at her proper address.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has submitted that the primary contentions at hand is, since the address of the petitioner, in the complaint in question, is stated to have been an old address, therefore, the notice, bailable/ non-bailable bailable warrants remained unexecuted/ unserved. Further, to provide a clear picture of the factual background, the learned counsel has stated that vide order dated 24.09.2021, the petitioner was admitted on bail by the Court below. Learned counsel sub submitted mitted that the petitioner was MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.22 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2 CRM-
CRM-M-39563- 39563-2025 regularly appearing before the Court below, but due to one Payal Sharma, who impersonated herself as an advocate before the Court below, induced the petitioner in respect of filing exemption applications and arranging surety. Learned counsel has submitted that Payal Sharma introduced one Balraj Singh to stand as a surety in the Court proceedings. Due to good faith in Payal Sharma, the petitioner did not attend the Court proceedings, and, said surety - Balraj Singh appeared before the Court below and denied having stood as surety for securing presence of the petitioner. Learned counsel has argued that vide order dated 30.04.2022, bail order of the petitioner was cancelled and bail/ surety bonds were forfeited to the State, and non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner. The petitioner was therefore, under impression that her personal presence has been exempted as per the application filed by Payal Sharma. Moreover, the summons were being served at old address, which did not come to the knowledge of the petitioner; the non- appearance was neither intentional nor deceitful. Learned counsel has further submitted that proclamation proceedings were initiated and vide order dated 05.08.2023, proclamation was issued against the petitioner for 21.10.2023. Learned counsel has argued that, vide order dated 02.09.2023, it has been stated that statement of the serving official was recorded and the matter was adjourned awaiting presence of accused till 21.10.2023. Learned counsel has argued that, still the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person, vide impugned order dated 21.10.2023 passed by the Court below.
2.1. Learned counsel has further argued that the proclamation was not done in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C., thus, the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender is in gross violation of law and principles of natural justice as there was no deliberate evasion or non- appearance on the part of the petitioner. On the basis of these submissions, learned MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.22 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 3 CRM-
CRM-M-39563- 39563-2025 counsel has prayed that the impugned order being illegal and unjustified, is liable to be set-aside.
2.2. Learned counsel has submitted that pursuant to the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner has caused appearance before the Court below and furnished personal bail bonds, and the same were accepted, vide order dated 23.03.2026.
3. Learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the short reply by way of an affidavit dated 25.02.2026, which is already placed on record, has opposed the present petition. While refuting the case set up by the petitioner, detailed arguments were advanced on merits, contending that the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious in nature. Furthermore, it has been submitted by the learned State counsel that despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner failed to cause appearance before the Court below, and consequently, learned Court below issued proclamation against the petitioner. Learned State counsel has argued that ultimately, vide impugned order dated 21.10.2023, the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person after following the procedure as laid-down under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 in letter and spirit and no discrepancy whatsoever is forthcoming from the records of the case. Accordingly, dismissal of the instant petition has been prayed for.
Learned State counsel has, however, submitted that pursuant to the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner caused appearance before the Court below and vide order dated 23.03.2026, the petitioner has furnished personal bail bonds to the satisfaction of the said Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully perused the record of the case.
MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.22 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 4 CRM-
CRM-M-39563- 39563-2025
5. The law is well settled that no person can be declared a proclaimed offender/person unless the procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is strictly and meticulously adhered to. It is trite that the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature, and any non-compliance thereof vitiates the entire proceedings. Furthermore, Section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C. clearly provides that before issuing a proclamation, requiring a person to appear, the Court must have reason to believe, based on material on record, that such person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant cannot be executed.
In the present case, it has been pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier notices, bailable/ non-bailable warrants were issued on the old address of the petitioner. It has been further pleaded that the petitioner was defrauded by one Payal Sharma, who impersonated herself as an advocate, and upon her assurance, the petitioner could not appear before the Court below, and her bail order was also cancelled. It has been further pleaded that after issuance of proclamation against the petitioner, statement of the serving official was recorded. Perusal of the said statement reveals that, in terms of the provisions of Section 82 Cr. P.C., the proclamation was not read publicly at a conspicuous place of the town or village in which the petitioner ordinarily resides, nor is there any material to demonstrate compliance with the prescribed modes of publication. 5.1. It is worthwhile to mention here that, in pursuanceof the order dated 25.02.2026 by this Court in the present petition, the petitioner has duly caused appearance before the Court below, and vide order dated 23.03.2026 passed by the Court below, the petitioner has furnished the personal bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Court, thereby evidencing her bona fide conduct and absence of any intention to evade the process of law.
MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.22 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 5 CRM-
CRM-M-39563- 39563-2025
6. This Court finds that the course adopted by the Court below is in clear contravention of, and antithetical to, the provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court below has committed a manifest illegality by issuing and acting upon the proclamation without ensuring compliance with the mandatory statutory requirements. The learned Court below, while declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person, failed to record the requisite judicial satisfaction regarding due execution of the proclamation and proceeded in a mechanical and perfunctory manner, rendering the impugned order legally unsustainable. Such an order being violative of mandatory provisions of law, cannot be sustained. Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 reads as under:
"82. Proclamation for person absconding. - (1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.
(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows: -
(i)(a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides;
(b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village;
(c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the court- house;
(ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.
(3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause (i) of sub-section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day.
[(4) Where a proclamation published under sub-section (1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459, or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect. (5) The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration made by the Court under sub-section (4) as they apply to the proclamation published under sub-section (1).]"
MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.22 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment 6 CRM-
CRM-M-39563- 39563-2025
7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with invocation of the provision of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against an accused 319', held as in the case of 'Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319' under:
"9. The essential requirements of section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder and declaring him as proclaimed person/offender may be summarized 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 v. 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., 1973. (See Rohit Kumar v. 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 BishundayalMahton and others v. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366 and Devender Singh Negi v. 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 publication of the proclamation. (See Gurappa Gugal and others v. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali v. 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 v.
State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) RCR (CRIMINAL) 166 and Ashok Kumar v. 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., 1973. 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., 1973 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 v. 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.22 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 7 CRM-
CRM-M-39563- 39563-2025 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 Courthouse 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 v. 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., 1973. 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 v. State: 1958 CriLJ 965).
(xi) The conditions specified in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 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 proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity. (See Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu v. State of U.P. and another: 1994 CriLJ 1783 and Pal Singh v. The State: 1955 CriLJ 318)."
8. It is by now a settled principle of law that prior to issuing a proclamation under Section 82 Cr. P.C., the Court is required to record its satisfaction that the accused, against whom such proclamation is sought, is absconding or is concealing himself/ herself with the intention to evade arrest. This foundational and jurisdictional requirement is conspicuously absent in the present case. A perusal of the impugned order dated 21.10.2023 reveals that no such satisfaction has been recorded by the Court below, nor does the record disclose any material which could justify an inference that the petitioner had absconded or was deliberately avoiding her appearance before the Court. Furthermore, the effecting of proclamation was not done as per provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C., resulting in serious prejudice to the petitioner.
9. The provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, having serious civil and criminal ramifications qua the rights of an accused, particularly affecting his liberty and participation in trial proceedings, cannot be invoked in a casual or cavalier manner. The mandatory requirement of recording satisfaction that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself/ herself so that MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.22 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 8 CRM-
CRM-M-39563- 39563-2025 the warrant of arrest cannot be executed, as embodied under Section 82 Cr.P.C., must be scrupulously complied with on the basis of cogent and relevant material available on record. Any non-adherence to this statutory mandate while declaring an accused as a proclaimed offender/person vitiates the proclamation proceedings in their entirety.
10. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by permitting the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioner, which are founded upon an illegal and procedurally flawed proclamation. It is, therefore, a fit and appropriate case for the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS / Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., so as to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
11. In view of the above findings, and considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present petition is allowed.
allowed Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.10.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person, as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.
quashed
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
(SUMEET GOEL) GOEL) JUDGE April 21, 21, 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.22 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment