Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suraj Singh Brar vs State Of Punjab on 21 November, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-14143-2024
266
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-14143-2024
Date of Decision: 21.11.2024
Suraj Singh Brar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh, D.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
116 26.12.2009 Lohian, District Jalandhar 409, 420 IPC
(Rural)
1. Challenging the order dated 23.04.2011 of proclamation on being declared as
proclaimed offender, the petitioner has come up before this court under section 482
CrPC.
2. Affidavit filed by State counsel is taken on record. A copy thereof has been
supplied to counsel for the petitioner.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits the summons, warrants and proclamation notices
have never been served upon the petitioner as wrong address of petitioner has been
mentioned in the summons, notices and warrants and as such, he was not aware of
proclamation proceedings pending against him. During the period when notices, arrest
warrants were issued, he was serving his department and there was no hindrance for the
executing officer to arrest him because he could not abscond. Till date, no departmental
action has been taken against the petitioner and for this reason also, he was not aware
about the pendency of FIR and the order declaring him proclaimed offender.
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-14143-2024
4. A perusal of the said statement reveals that the prosecution did not comply with the
provisions of Section 82 CrPC. Section 82 CrPC provides that affixation must be
made where the petitioner resides. Given above, the proclamation was not affixed in
terms of section 82 (2) (i) (a) & (b) of CrPC, which mandate that the proclamation shall
be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person
ordinarily resides; and it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or
homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such
town or village. None of these conditions were complied with, and the non-adherence to
the procedure has rendered the proclamation illegal. Further, petitioner was in job and
there was no reason with the executing officer to only affix the proclamation but he
should have arrested the petitioner.
7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that due to delay in trial, the government
machinery is being put to burden and they are ready to deposit an amount of Rs.1 lacs to
PGI Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh.
8. Given the facts of non-compliance of provisions of CrPC while executing
proclamation and petitioner's willingness to pay Rs.1 lac to PGI Poor Patient Welfare
Fund, Chandigarh, the impugned order is set aside from the date of petitioner's
appearance before the concerned court and deposit of fine on 02.12.2024 at 11.00 A.M.
Petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
21.11.2024
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: NO.
authenticity of this order/judgment
