Prabhjot Singh vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 10898 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Prabhjot Singh vs State Of Punjab on 5 July, 2024

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082320

CRM-M-53813
      53813-2023 (O&M)                                                     -1--




      IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                  HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
235
                                                  CRM-M-53813-2023 (O&M)
                                                   Date of decision: 05.07.2024
                                                                       .07.2024

Prabhjot Singh                                                      ...Petitioner

                                         Versus

State of Punjab                                                  ...Respondents
                                                                 ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:-    Mr. G. S. Salana, Advocate
             For the petitioner.

             Mr. A. S. Samra, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section

482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 25.05.2023,, passed by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Fatehgarh Sahib in case titled as State of Punjab vs.

Prabhjot Singh and others, others, arising out of FIR No. 67 dated 16.06.2018, 16.06.2018

registered under Sections Section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 120-B B of IPC at

Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib Sahib,, whereby the petitioner had

been declared a proclaimed person.

2. The present petition n has been filed by the petitioner on the

grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been

falsely implicated in this case.

case. The petitioner had been declared a proclaimed

person without following the proper procedure prescribed und under er Section 82

Cr.P.C. Hence, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3. Learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner was having

knowledge about the pendency of the trial and had intentionally avoided his

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082320

CRM-M-53813 53813-2023 (O&M) -2--

appearance before the the trial Court. Therefore, he was rightly declared a

proclaimed person.. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be

dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone

through the material placed on record. Vide order dated ated 20.11.2023, the

operation of the impugned order dated 25.05.2023 was stayed by this Court.

5. On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by

learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed

by the trial Court Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Section 82

Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed

person,, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated

25.05.2023 suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with

all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

6. There are catena of judgments of different High Courts

discussing the requirements necessary for issuance and publication of

proclamation against an absconder under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and for declaring

him as a proclaimed person/offender. These requirement requirementss have been discussed

from time to time in Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561,

Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561, Bishundayal Mahton

and others Vs. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366, Devender Singh Negi Vs.

State of U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783, Gurappa Gugal and

others Vs. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826, Shokat Ali Vs. State of

Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339, Dilbagh Singh Vs. State of Punjab :

(P&H) 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166, Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Har Haryana yana

and another : 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 550, Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. The

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082320

CRM-M-53813 53813-2023 (O&M) -3--

State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368, Birad Dan Vs. State : 1958 CriLJ 965,

Negi alias Debu Vs. State of U.P. and another, 1994 Cri LJ 1783 and Pal

Singh Vs. The State : 1955 CriLJ 318.

7. After going through the material placed on record as well as the

copies of zimini orders passed by the trial Court Court, it is revealed that on

17.02.2023 since the non-bailable 17.02.2023, bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were

received back unserved, the trial Court had ordered for issuance of

proclamation against him for 04.03.2023 04.03.2023. On 04.03.2023, since the

proclamation was received back unserved, fresh proclamation was issued for

20.04.2023. A bare perusal of the orderss dated 17.02.2023 and 04.03.2023

shows that at the trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has

not recorded its satisfaction much less proper satisfaction that that the

petitioner had absconded or was concealing himself so that the warrant of

arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence,

which was in violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. Reliance

in this regard can be placed upon Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl.

J. 2561.

8. Further, when on 20.04.2023, the case was taken up, the

statement of the serving police official ASI Shan Chand was recorded to the

effect that the proclamation was executed on 08.04.2 08.04.2023.

023. However, since the

statutory period of 30 days had not elapsed, the case was adjourned to

25.05.2023 and on that date, due to non-appearance non appearance of the petitioner, he was

declared a proclaimed person. A perusal of order dated 20.04.2023 shows that

the proclamation clamation was executed on 08.04.2023 requiring the petitioner to cause

his appearance on 20.04.2023 before the trial Court, which means that he was

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082320

CRM-M-53813 53813-2023 (O&M) -4--

not granted statutory period of 30 days to cause his appearance before the trial

Court. Hence, the same was in clear violation of the provisions of Section

82(1) Cr.P.C., as per which, a specified time of not less than 30 days is

required to be given to the accused from the date of publishing such

proclamation which is mandatory in nature. Reliance in this rega regard rd can be

placed upon Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ

826 and Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339. More

so, while adjourning the case to 25.05.2023 to await the appearance of the

petitioner as the statutory period of 30 days had not elapsed by then then,, the trial

Court failed to consider the fact that it could not have extended the time by

simply adjourning the case as a fresh proclamation was required to be

published once the period between issuance of publicat publication ion of proclamation

and the specified period of hearing was less than 30 days. Reference in this

context can be made to Dilbagh Singh Vs. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8)

R.C.R. (criminal) 166.

9. Accordingly, in view of the discussion as made above and also in

view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities authorities,, the present

petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.05.2023,, passed by the

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fatehgarh Sahib in case titled as State of

Punjab vs. Prabhjot Singh and others,, arising out of FIR No. 67 dated

16.06.2018 registered under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B

of IPC at Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib Sahib,, whereby the

petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person,, is quashed with all

consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082320

CRM-M-53813 53813-2023 (O&M) -5--

10. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court

concerned within a period of four weeks, subject to order for grant of

anticipatory bail, if any passed on his petit petition ion to be filed under Section 438 of

the Cr.P.C. In the absence of any order for grant of anticipatory bail and on

such surrender, the petitioner shall be liable to be remanded to judicial

custody subject to any order for grant of regular bail to be passed by the

concerned Court in accordance with law.

11. Needless to observe that in case any application is filed before

the concerned Court for grant of regular bail, then the concerned Court shall

be bound to dispose of the same expeditiously and that nothi nothing ng in this order

shall be treated as expression of any opinion on merits so as to bind or

influence the concerned Court in disposal of the same.

12. Till the appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court, his

arrest shall hall remain remai stayed.

13. It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before

the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today, this petition shall be

deemed to be dismissed.

14. Since the main petition stands disposed of, pending

application(s), if any, shall shall also be treated as disposed of.

05.07.2024
  .07.2024                                                     (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari                                                      JUDGE




          Whether speaking/reasoned                            Yes

          Whether reportable                                   Yes




                                      5 of 5