Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sucha Singh vs State Of Punjab on 15 March, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046094
CRM-M-6246-2017 - 1-
255 2024:PHHC:046094
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-6246-2017 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 15.03.2024
SUCHA SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Aadil Boparai, Advocate for
Ms. Rishma Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner. (through VC).
Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate
for the complainant.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been invoked seeking quashing of proclamation order dated 16.03.2015
(Annexure P-6) passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, SBS Nagar in case
FIR No. 10, dated 21.05.2014, under sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC registered at
Police Station NRI SBS Nagar and all other consequential proceedings emanating
therefrom.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his son filed a petition for divorce and
the summons were served upon the complainant on 09.04.2014. Thereafter, getting
the summons the complainant became furious and with the help of her relatives she
filed a complaint on 15.04.2014 on the basis of which the present FIR was
registered 21.05.2014 against the petitioner, his wife, his son and daughter. The
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046094
CRM-M-6246-2017 - 2-
assertion is that the petitioner came to know from his son that he has been shown
residing at the address in India whereas, he is a British citizen and is residing abroad
since 27.04.1988. Thus, because of wrong address mentioned in the complaint, the
complainant has managed to initiate deliberately and with malafide adverse
proclaimed person proceedings against the petitioner, which is totally in violation of
provision of Section 82 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has also submitted a detailed
representation dated 19.04.2015 but no vain.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further asserts that even
otherwise also this order is liable to be set aside, as the absence of the petitioner was
neither intentional nor deliberate as prior to the registration of the FIR as well as
complaint, he was not residing in India since having settled in UK in 1988. The
present FIR came to be registered on 21.05.2014 whereas during this time petitioner
was already in UK and had no knowledge about the proceedings initiated against
him.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, has submitted that the
petitioner despite the proclamation had failed to appear before the trial Court and
has rightly been declared proclaimed person vide the impugned order. And in
addition the petitioner is evading the process of court which is highly deprecated on
his part. He also asserts that non-complying with the orders of the court shows that
he has no respect for the courts' order and a person who obstructs the process of law
and evades from it does not deserves any concession.
5. Heard respective counsels for the parties
6. According to the averments, the petitioner was resident of UK since
1988 i.e. well before the relevant FIR was filed. According to Section 82 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, a proclamation may be issued against an individual by
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046094
CRM-M-6246-2017 - 3-
the Court if it is reasonably believed that the person for whom a warrant has been
issued has absconded or is hiding, making it impossible for the warrant to be carried
out.
7. A person cannot be said to be "abscond" or "evade" the execution of
warrant when he had gone to a distant place before the issue of the warrant.
Dependence can be made on the judicial dictum rendered in the case of "M.S.R.
Gundappa v. State of Karnataka" (1977 Cr LJ NOC 187), wherein it was held that
a person who had gone abroad even before the issue of the warrant of arrest cannot
be said to be absconding or concealing himself with the intention to disrupt the
execution of that warrant.
8. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment of this Court rendered
in CRM-M-1513-2009 tiled as "Mehar Singh And Anr. vs State of Punjab"
wherein it was held as under:
"In the present case, since the petitioners were already residing in
Canada before the registration of FIR in question i.e. since the year
1997, there was no occasion for them to conceal themselves or
abscond. A perusal of order dated 7-10-2008 (Annexure P-10) and
order dated 21-12-2007 (Annexure P- 4) does not reveal that the
petitioners were ever attempted to be served in Canada especially
when there was no material on record that the petitioners had left the
country after the registration of FIR in question with a view to
abscond or conceal themselves. Rather in the inquiries conducted by
the police, the petitioners were found to be innocent because the
alleged papers in question were prepared in Canada. Thus, the
petitioners were declared proclaimed offenders in violation of Section
82, Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
7-10-2008 (Annexure P-10), whereby the petitioners were declared
proclaimed offenders, is set aside."
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046094
CRM-M-6246-2017 - 4-
9. From the perusal of the case file as well from the support of the
documents it can be inferred that the petitioner is a resident of UK and has been a
citizen of UK since the year 1988 i.e. 28 years. Further, it is crystal clear that the
petitioner has been shown to be a resident of Village Dadial, District Hoshiarpur but
for all intents and purposes, the residence of the petitioner was in UK, therefore,
there was no occasion for him to evade the process of law intentionally, as he was
never served in accordance with law. Thus the proclamation order dated 16.03.2015
(Annexure P-6) is in gross violation of Section 82 Cr.P.C.
10. Therefore in light of the afore-said judicial pronouncements and
discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned
order dated 16.03.2015 (Annexure P-6), vide which the petitioner has been declared
proclaimed person, is bad in law and not sustainable. Hence, the same deserves to
be set aside.
11. In view of the above, the present petition stands allowed and the
impugned order dated 16.03.2015 (Annexure P-6) is set aside.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
15.03.2024 JUDGE
sham
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
