Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Kumar @ Rajinder Hans @ Rk vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165024
2023:PHHC:165024
144-6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-51383-2023
Date of decision: 21.12.2023
Rajinder Kumar @ Rajinder Hans @ RK ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Manmeet Singh Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for
quashing of order dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed in CHI/1424/2014
titled as 'State of Punjab Vs. Rajinder Kumar alias RK' whereby, the petitioner
has been declared as proclaimed person in a case bearing FIR No.188 dated
20.07.2014 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406/420 of IPC registered at Police
Station Rama Mandi, District Jalandhar City on the basis of compromise
(Anneuxre P-2).
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, inter alia, contends
that with the intervention of the respectable persons of the family, a
compromise has been effected between the parties vide compromise deed dated
26.06.2023 (Annexure P-2). He further submits that six trials were pending
against the petitioner and in one of the cases, he could not appear before the
learned trial Court and non-bailable warrants have been issued against him.
Since, all the cases pertain to the same police station and pending before the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165024
2023:PHHC:165024
same Court, therefore, he could not appear in rest of the cases and ultimately
declared proclaimed person vide order dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure P-3).
Aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure P-3), the
petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the mandate of
Section 82 Cr.P.C. has not been followed in its letter and spirit by the trial Court
as the petitioner was convicted in two other cases bearing FIR No.221 dated
23.11.2010 and FIR No.265 dated 29.11.2012 under the Gambling Act when
proclamation was issued against him. In support of his arguments, counsel for
the petitioner relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in Sonu vs. State of
Haryana 2021 (1) RCR (Cri.) 319 and the judgment passed by the Gujarat
High Court in Govindbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal)
830. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the
trial Court on each and every date and also the petitioner has entered into a
compromise with the wife of the complainant, in proof of which, a compromise
dated 26.06.2023 (Annexure P-2) is annexed with the present petition.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab who is present in Court accepts
notice for the official respondents and supports the order passed by the learned
trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in appearance before the
trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, therefore, having left with no
other option, proclamation was issued against him to secure his presence.
6. At this stage, Mr. Sunpreet Singh, Advocate puts in appearance and
accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and filed power of attorney which
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165024
2023:PHHC:165024
is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place
in the file. He admits the factum of compromise effected with the petitioner.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the case with their able assistance.
8. 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.
9. 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 that the accused is
intentionally concealing himself and his presence cannot be secured by any
other means before issuance of process under Section 82 and non-recording of
the satisfaction itself makes such order suffering from incurable illegality.
10. 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.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present
petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure P-3)
vide which the petitioner was declared proclaimed person is hereby set aside.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165024
2023:PHHC:165024
The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within a period of four
weeks from today 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.3,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services
Authority Jalandhar, for wasting precious time of the Court.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
21.12.2023
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165024
4 of 4
