Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 16 April, 2024
124 2024:PHHC:050890
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-15325-2024
Date of Decision: April 16, 2024
GURDEEP SINGH ........Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MwR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present:Mr. Sunny Saggar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kewal Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 CrPC,
prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 23.12.2014
passed by learned SDJM, Patiala whereby, the petitioner was declared
as proclaimed preson having been arrayed as an accused in FIR
No.241 dated 09.10.2006 registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-
B IPC at P.S. City Rajpura, District Patiala along with few others.
2. The petitioner was granted concession of regular bail by the
Court of learned Sessions Judge, Patiala on 16.01.2007. Challan in the
aforementioned FIR was submitted on 14.05.2007 followed by framing
of charges on 08.02.2010. The petitioner continued to appear before
the trial Court but for 29.10.2014, on account of having left the country
for Australia on 23.08.2014, in search of employment and to earn his
livelihood. On account of his absence, the petitioner was declared as
proclaimed person vide impugned order dated 23.12.2014.
3. Impugning the same, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that impugned order was passed without following the
mandatory procedure laid down under Section 82 of CrPC. He also
submits that upon trial, three of the co-accused were convicted and the
remaining three were acquitted by the Court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Patiala vide Judgment dated 09.11.2012, subsequently, on
account of compromise been entered between the parties, the FIR in
question was quashed qua the three convicted persons by this Court
vide order dated 16.03.2023 passed in CRM-M-6046-2023 and thus, he
prays that the declaration of petitioner as proclaimed person be
quashed as he was even ready to appear before the trial Court and to
face the trial and also ready to deposit suitable cost.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently
opposes the prayer made herein while submitting that the petitioner
absented himself from the Court proceedings for a long period of almost
10 years. He further submits that being conscious of the fact that the
trial was pending against him, the petitioner still without obtaining
permission from the Court concerned went to Australia and thus, was
not entitled for any kind of concession by this Court. Learned State
counsel also submits that the proceedings were carried out against the
petitioner after having followed the mandatory procedure laid down
under Section 82 of CrPC and thus, the impugned order warrants no
interference.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made by
learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. In the present case, the proclamation under Section 82 of
CrPC was ordered against the petitioner on 12.11.2014 for 27.11.2014
being the date for submission of report qua affixation. Though, the
proclamation was effected on 20.11.2014, however, by 27.11.2014, 30
days' period as contemplated under Section 82 of CrPC required to be
afforded to the petitioner so as to put in appearance in pursuance to the
proclamation had not expired and the proceedings were adjourned for
23.12.2014 awaiting the appearance of petitioner. In the aforesaid facts,
it could not be made out from the records as to what was the date for
appearance, given on the proclamation affixed on 27.11.2014, thereby
not enabling the petitioner to appear before the trial Court, as the date
for appearance was later deferred for 23.12.2014 by the trial Court on
27.11.2014 in pursuance to the affixation made on 20.11.2014. Still
further, a perusal of the statement made by the executant-Police Officer
regarding affixation of proclamation on 20.11.2014 shows that the
proclamation was never read over in public place as required to be
done under Section 82 (2) (i) (a) of CrPC and thus, there was apparent
non-compliance of mandatory procedure.
7. Moreover, the parties have now settled their dispute and the
FIR in question against three accused who were convicted vide
judgment dated 09.11.2022 also stands quashed and the allegations
against those persons were more or less similar to those levelled
against the petitioner. Besides it, the petitioner is also willing to
surrender himself before the trial Court and ready to face the
proceedings. The petitioner even volunteers to serve public cause by
providing Suction Machine/OT and Cautery Machine-Unipolar+Bipolar
to A.P. Jain Civil Hospital, Rajpura, District Patiala
8. A cumulative analysis of discussion made hereinabove,
finding merits in the present petition, the same is allowed and order
dated 23.12.2014 whereby petitioner was declared as proclaimed
person is hereby quashed.
9. The petitioner shall however surrender himself before the
trial Court within a period of four weeks subject to furnishing of bail
bonds/surety bonds to its satisfaction and provide abovementioned
medical equipments to A.P. Jain Civil Hospital, Rajpura, District Patiala,
as volunteered by him.
10. Till then, no coercive steps be shall be taken against the
petitioner.
16.04.2024 (HARKESH MANUJA)
Tejwinder JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
