Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Kaur Dhillon vs State Of Punjab on 8 November, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145862
CRM-M-55339-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
113 CRM-M-55339-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 08.11.2024
SURJIT KAUR DHILLON ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr.Tarun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG, Punjab.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
This petition has been filed under Section 528 The Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for setting aside the impugned order
dated 03.06.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by JMIC Zira whereby, the
petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender in case registered
vide FIR No. 131 dated 21/12/2021 u/s 306 Indian Penal Code 1860,
Police Station Zira, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-1).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in
abroad at the time of registration of the FIR and the entire proclamation
proceedings took place in her absence in India. He further submits that
the petitioner along with her husband (deceased Achar Singh) came to
India last on 08.07.2021 and went back on 13.10.2021, wherein the
present FIR was registered on 21.12.2021. Не contends that the petitioner
was asked to appear on 06.05.2023 and the proclamation was published
on 28.04.2023.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145862
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, she was not residing in India. The present FIR
came to be registered on 21.12.2021 whereas during this time petitioner
was already abroad and had no knowledge about the proceedings initiated
agairt her. Further, counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner
will surrender before the trial Court and shall join the trial proceedings
without any delay or default in future.
4. Notice of motion.
5. On the asking of the Court, learned State Counsel accepts
notice on behalf of the respondent-State and has submitted that the
petitioner despite the proclamation had failed to appear before the trial
Court and has rightly been declared proclaimed person, and in addition
the petitioner is evading the process of court which is highly deprecated
on her part. He also asserts that non-complying with the orders of the
court shows that she 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. However, he is not averse to the undertaking given by the
petitioner that he will surrender before the trial Court.
6. Heard respective counsels for the parties.
7. According to the averments, the petitioner was in abroad at
the time of registration of the FIR. According to Section 82 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, a proclamation may be issued against an
individual by the Court if it is reasonably believed that the person for
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145862
whom a warrant has been issued has absconded or is hiding, making it
impossible for the warrant to be carried out.
8. 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.
9. 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 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145862
10. From the perusal of the case file as well from the support of the
documents it can be inferred that the petitioner was abroad at the time of
registration of the FIR, therefore, there was no occasion for her to evade
the process of law intentionally, as she was never served in accordance
with law. Thus the proclamation order dated 03.06.2023 (Annexure P-5)
is in gross violation of Section 82 Cr.P.C.
11. 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 03.06.2023 (Annexure P-5), vide which the
petitioner has been declared proclaimed person, is bad in law and not
sustainable. Hence, the same deserves to be set aside and in view of the
submissions made by learned counsel and also in appreciation of the fact
that it will only speed up the proceedings before the Trial Court which is
one of the essence as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court on
12.11.2024 and apply for regular bail.
12. In case, such an application for bail is moved by the
petitioner before the learned trial Court, the same shall be considered on
the same date and decided in accordance with law.
13 However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not
abide by the aforesaid undertaking, the respondent/State shall be at liberty
to move an appropriate application for revival of the instant petition.
14. Consequently, the petition is allowed in the above terms
and the impugned order dated 03.06.2023 (Annexure P-5) is set aside,
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145862
however, the aforesaid order/concession to the petitioner shall be subject
to payment of costs of 5,000 US Dollar to be deposited with the Chandi
Kusht Asshram Society, (account No.1445265900) (IFSC Code
KKBK0004211), Kotak Mahindra Bank, Sector 46-C Chandigarh and a
receipt of the same be produced before the Trial Court and only in that
eventuality, application of the petitioner for seeking bail be considered
and decided on the same day in accordance with law.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
08.11.2024
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
