Punjab-Haryana High Court
Himmat Alias Rahul vs State Of Haryana on 20 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040172
2024:PHHC:040172
122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-14379-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.03.2024
Himmat alias Rahul ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
seeking quashing of order dated 15.02.2022 (Annexure P-6) passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat, whereby, the petitioner was
declared as proclaimed person as well as quashing of FIR No.109 dated
02.03.2022 under Section 174-A of IPC registered at Police Station Israna,
District Panipat and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the entire
prosecution evidence was completed and on 08.10.2021, the petitioner could
not appear before the learned trial Court due to his medical condition and due to
his non appearance, his bail was cancelled and bail bonds were forfeited to the
State followed by issuance of non-bailable warrants for 08.11.2021. On
08.11.2021, on account of receipt of report regarding non-bailable warrants as
'unexecuted', fresh non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner for
14.12.2021. On 14.12.2021, the trial Court has initiated P.O. proceedings against him by
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040172
2024:PHHC:040172
observing that he is concealing himself and avoiding his arrest and issued
proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. for 15.02.2022. Ultimately, on
15.02.2022 (Annexure P-6), the trial Court declared the petitioner as proclaimed
person and consequently, FIR No.109 dated 02.03.2022 under Section 174-A of
IPC was registered at Police Station Israna, District Panipat against him.
Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.02.2022 (Annexure P-6) as well as
the said FIR, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the mandate of
Section 82 Cr.P.C. has not been followed in its letter and spirit by the trial
Court.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana, who is present in Court accepts
notice on behalf of the respondent 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 his presence.
6. 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.
7. While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates
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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040172
2024:PHHC:040172
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.
8. As far as possible, presence of the accused in the eventuality of his
non-appearance ought to be secured by issuing summons or bailable warrants
and non-bailable warrants/proclamation should not generally be issued. A
perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court without issuing
summons or bailable warrants straight away issued proclamation, much less,
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 Cr.P.C. and non-recording of the
satisfaction itself makes such order suffering from incurable illegality.
9. The stand of learned counsel representing the petitioner is that the
petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person in contravention of the
prescribed procedure under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
petitioner was never served before the proclamation was issued under Section
82 Cr.P.C.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present
petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.02.2022 (Annexure P-
6) vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person as well as FIR
No.109 dated 02.03.2022 under Section 174-A of IPC registered at Police
Station Israna, District Panipat, are hereby set aside subject to payment
of Rs.10,000/- as costs to be deposited with the Poor Patient Welfare Fund,
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040172
2024:PHHC:040172
PGIMER, Chandigarh, for wasting precious time of the Court.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
20.03.2024
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
