Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another on 20 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164052
2023:PHHC:164052
CRM-M-62442-2023 1
122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-62442-2023(O&M)
Date of Decision: 20.12.2023
SURESH KUMAR
...Petitioner
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Divyam Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG Haryana.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of order dated 05.05.2022 (Annexure P-20)
alongwith the consequential proceedings vide which the petitioner has been
declared as proclaimed person in complaint case bearing COMA 361 of
2016 titled as Reliance Capital Limited Vs. Suresh Kumar and Another
dated 29.09.2016 (Annexure P-1).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that in the
aforesaid complaint case, notice was issued to the petitioner and the
summons could not be served upon him, based upon which bailable
warrants were issued, which were also received back unexecuted and vide
order dated 31.07.2017 and thereafter non-bailable warrants were issued
against the petitioner for 18.09.2017. Thereafter on 18.09.2017, when
matter was taken up, non-bailable warrants were not issued and thereafter
the same were received back as unexecuted on 01.03.2018. On 10.04.2018,
when the matter was taken up, the non bailable warrants were received back
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164052
2023:PHHC:164052
unexecuted. Then fresh non-bailable warrants were issued and the matter
got adjourned. The matter was taken up on several dates and despite issuing
bailable warrants on every occasion the same were received back
unexecuted. Ultimately, vide order dated 05.05.2022, the petitioner has been
ordered to be declared as a proclaimed person and proceedings under
Section 174-A IPC were initiated against him. It is further contended that
non-appearance of the petitioner before the learned trial Court was neither
intentional nor willful and the petitioner has not been served even once and
also the address as mentioned in the complaint is incorrect and incomplete,
hence the proceedings against him are liable to be set aside. The petitioner
is ready to join proceedings and undertakes to be remained present on each
and every date of hearing.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record of the case with his able assistance.
4. While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates
curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance
that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to
maintain a healthy balance between personal liberty of the individual-
accused and interests of the society in promoting law and order. Such
procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India
i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or
unreasonableness.
5. This Court in the judgment passed in Major Singh @ Major Vs.
State of Punjab 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406; 2023 (2) Law Herald
1506 has held that the Court is first required to record its satisfaction before
issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and non-recording of the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164052
2023:PHHC:164052
satisfaction itself makes such order suffering from incurable illegality. In
the judgment passed by this Court in Sonu vs. State of Haryana 2021 (1)
RCR (Cri.) 319, it has been held that the conditions specified in Section 82
(2) Cr.P.C. for the publication of a proclamation against an absconder are
mandatory in nature. Any non-compliance therewith cannot be cured as an
'irregularity' and renders the proclamation as nullity. Once the impugned
order passed under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is found to be suffering from an
incurable illegality, the order vide which the proclamation was issued would
be liable to be set aside.
6. The sole purpose of issuance of non-bailable warrants or issuance
of proclamation is to secure presence of the accused before the trial Court.
The petitioner in the present case has himself come forward and has
undertaken to appear before the trial Court on each and every date.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned
order dated 05.05.2022 (Annexure P-20) vide which the petitioner was
declared proclaimed person is set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear
before the trial Court within four weeks and on his doing so, he shall be
admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the trial Court, along with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be
deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Karnal, for wasting
precious time of the Court.
8. The instant petition stands disposed of in above terms.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
20.12.2023 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164052
3 of 3
