Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajan Katna vs Wazir Chand Rakesh Kumar And Another on 13 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036095
2024:PHHC:036095
127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12830-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.03.2024
Rajan Katna ....Petitioner
Versus
Wazir Chand Rakesh Kumar and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Anoop Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for
quashing/setting aside of impugned order dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P-1)
vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in complaint case
bearing NACT No.195 of 2021 dated 05.03.2021 titled as 'M/s Wazir Chand
Etc. Vs. Rajan Katna Etc.'
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inter alia contends
that the petitioner was on bail and vide order dated 21.11.2023, on account of
his non appearance as he was suffering from dengue fever, the bail of the
petitioner was cancelled and bail bonds/surety bonds were cancelled and
forfeited to the State by the learned trial Court followed by issuance of non-
bailable warrants of arrest against him for 05.12.2023. On 05.12.2023, a fine
of Rs.2 lakhs was imposed upon the surety under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. On
06.12.2023, the petitioner moved an application before the learned Court
below seeking recall of warrants of arrest dated 07.11.2023, 21.11.2023 and
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036095
2024:PHHC:036095
05.12.2023 issued against him and the same was dismissed vide order dated
12.12.2023. On 19.12.2023, the learned trial Court issued proclamation under
Section 82 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for 31.01.2024. It is further
submitted that the said proclamation against the petitioner was published on
09.01.2024. On 19.02.2024, the trial Court declared the petitioner as
proclaimed person. Aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 19.02.2024
(Annexure P-1), the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant
petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the non-
bailable warrants issued to the petitioner were never served and, therefore, the
finding of the trial Court that the petitioner is intentionally evading his arrest, is
erroneous. Further, the trial Court vide order dated 19.12.2023 observed that
since non-bailable warrants have not been executed till date, he cannot be
served through ordinary process and issued proclamation under Section 82
Cr.P.C. for 31.01.2024. Ultimately, vide impugned order dated 19.02.2024, the
petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person. 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. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record of the case.
6. While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036095
2024:PHHC:036095
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 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present
petition is allowed, without issuing notice to the respondents in order to save
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036095
2024:PHHC:036095
time of the Court and to avoid litigation expenses to be incurred on the part of
the respondents, the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) vide
which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person, is hereby set aside.
10. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within a
period of 15 days 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.5,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal
Services Authority, Hoshiarpur, for wasting precious time of the Court.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
13.03.2024
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036095
4 of 4
