Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Another on 29 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151925
2023:PHHC:151925
121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-59790-2023
Date of decision: 29.11.2023
Amarjit Kaur ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Jasmeet Singh Ghumman, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Navreet Kaur Barnala, AAG, Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for
quashing of impugned order dated 26.09.2022 (Annexure P-2) whereby, the
petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender in a case bearing FIR No.212
dated 04.10.2016 under Sections 379/34 (Sections 379-B/323/324/120-B added
later on) registered at Police Station Nakodar Sadar District Jalandhar Rural
(Annexure P-1).
2. Brief facts of the case are that at the behest of the petitioner her co-
accused caused injuries to the complainant and also snatched Rs.3 lakh and two
mobile phones from him, on account of which, the petitioner was arrested on
10.10.2016 and was granted bail. The petitioner kept appearing before the trial
Court till 09.01.2021 and absented from the Court on 09.03.2021. On account
of her absence, the trial Court has cancelled her bail and issued non-bailable
warrants against her on 10.03.2021. On 07.05.2022, the trial Court issued
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151925
2023:PHHC:151925
proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. On 26.09.2022,
the trial Court declared the petitioner proclaimed offender. Aggrieved by the
said impugned order dated 26.09.2022 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner has
approached this Court by way of instant petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the non-
bailable warrants and even the proclamation issued to the petitioner were never
served as she was not in India and was in Finland and, therefore, the finding of
the trial Court that the petitioner is intentionally evading her arrest, is
erroneous. Ultimately, vide impugned order dated 26.09.2022 (Annexure P-2),
the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender. It is contended that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the mandate of
Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has not been followed in its letter and spirit by the trial
Court.
4. It is also submitted that the petitioner undertakes to appear before
the trial Court on each and every date.
5. Notice of motion.
6. Ms. Navreet Kaur Barnala, AAG, Punjab who is present in Court,
accepts notice for respondent No.1 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 to secure her presence.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the case with their able assistance and with the consent of parties, the matter
is taken up for final disposal.
8. While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151925
2023:PHHC:151925
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. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court issued
proclamation without recording reasons of its belief that the petitioner has
absconded or is concealing himself. 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 of Cr.P.C. and non-
recording of the 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 (Crl.) 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. Any non-compliance therewith cannot be cured as an
'irregularity' and renders the proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto
a nullity.
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 herself 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 peti-
tion is allowed, without issuing notice to the respondent No.2 in order to save
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151925
2023:PHHC:151925
time of the Court and to avoid litigation expenses to be incurred on the part of
respondent No.2, the impugned order dated 26.09.2022 (Annexure P-2) vide
which the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender is set aside.
12. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within a
period of 15 days from today and on his doing so, she shall be admitted to bail
on her furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial
Court, along with costs of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal
Services Authority, Jalandhar, for wasting precious time of the Court.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
29.11.2023
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151925
4 of 4
