Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhmandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 22 March, 2024
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill
2024:PHHC:042253
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-14817-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 22.03.2024
Sukhmandeep Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishavjeet Singh Virk, DAG, Punjab.
Ms. Vaishali, Advocate, for
Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)
1. At the very outset, learned counsel submits that at this stage the petitioner
restricts his prayer to challenge only order dated 10.12.2018 (Annexure
P-7) passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala,
whereby he has been declared a proclaimed offender in respect of FIR
No.187 dated 26.10.2015 registered at P.S. Sadar Kapurthala, District
Kapurthala, under Sections 323, 325, 341, 342, 148, 149 IPC.
2. Learned counsel submits that in the instant case the mandatory provisions
of Section 82 Cr.P.C. have not been complied with in letter & spirit
inasmuch as a clear period of 30 days w.e.f. the date publication was
actually effected till the date nominated for causing appearance was not
afforded. Learned counsel in this regard has drawn the attention of this
CRM-M-14817-2023 (O&M) -2-
Court to order dated 27.09.2018 (Annexure P-5) vide which the learned
trial Court ordered for issuance of proclamation for securing the presence
of the petitioner so as to cause appearance on 14.11.2018.
3. A perusal of the proclamation notice (Anenxure P-3) would indicate that
the said notice was actually issued by the Court on 05.11.2018 requiring
the petitioner to cause appearance on 14.11.2018. Further, a perusal of
order dated 14.11.2018 (Annexure P-6) would show that the trial Court
had recorded the statement of the serving official, who stated that the
proclamation had been effected on 10.11.2018. However, the trial Court
chose to further adjourn the matter to 10.12.2018, as the period of 30
days w.e.f. from the date of effecting proclamation had not elapsed. It
was, thereafter, vide order dated 10.12.2018 (Annexure P-7), the trial
Court declared the petitioner as a proclaimed offender.
4. A perusal of the aforesaid orders indicate that while the trial Court had
directed issuance of proclamation requiring the petitioner to cause
appearance on 14.11.2018, but the proclamation was actually effected
only on 10.11.2018. In other words, as on 10.11.2018 when
proclamation as effected, the petitioner was left with only 4 days to cause
his appearance on 14.11.2018 i.e. the date fixed for causing appearance.
Although the trial Court did further adjourn the matter, as the period of
30 days has not been afforded, but such like adjournment would not cure
the defect which had already crept in, as has been held in Ashok Kumar
Vs. State of Haryana 2013(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 550 and also in a
judgment dated 26.03.2021 rendered by this Court in CRM-M-14209-
CRM-M-14817-2023 (O&M) -3-
2021 titled 'Anita Sharma Vs. State of Punjab'. In other words, it can
safely be held that the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. have not been
complied with in letter & spirit.
5. Consequently, the impugned order dated 10.12.2018 (Annexure P-7)
cannot sustain and is hereby set aside.
6. It is, however, clarified that it shall be open to the petitioner to move a
fresh petition for quashing of the FIR in question on the basis of a
compromise.
22.03.2024 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
Vimal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
