Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi vs State Of Punjab on 21 October, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137168
CRM-M-51790-2024 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-51790-2024
Date of decision: 21.10.2024
Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Jasraj Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
quashing of order dated 24.11.2015 Annexure P-8 passed by the Court of
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Garhshankar vide which the petitioner was
declared as proclaimed offender in criminal case having FIR No.102 dated
02.10.2014 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 302, 148, 149 IPC
(Section 120-B IPC added later on), at Police Station Mahilpur, District
Hoshiarpur.
2. Counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that at the relevant
time when warrants of proclamation were executed against the present
petitioner, he was not available in India. It is further submitted that actually,
petitioner is permanent resident of United Kingdom and copy of his
passport is placed on record. It is further submitted that no notice or
warrants with regard to pendency of the aforesaid criminal case were ever
sent at his given address in United Kingdom through the Indian embassy.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137168
CRM-M-51790-2024 [2]
That the procedure provided in Section 105 Cr.P.C was not followed by the
Court concerned while passing the impugned order. It is further contended
that even otherwise the impugned order is not sustainable being not passed
in conformity with the mandatory provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C as the
proclamation was not publicly read in the area of the village/town of the
petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner while referring to judgment
Annexure P-3 dated 17.12.2015 submits that the other accused who face
trial were acquitted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur.
3. The present petition is resisted by the State counsel who
submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and
further the petitioner has approached this Court after lapse of about 9 years
of the passing of impugned order.
4. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
parties.
5. The State counsel has not disputed the fact that petitioner is
residing in United Kingdom since long. As per the entry in his passport, the
petitioner reached England on 19.09.2012. Thus, making it clear that at the
time when the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C were initiated, the
petitioner was not available in India. There is nothing on the record to show
that the Court concerned ever made any effort to affect personal service of
the petitioner in United Kingdom through the Indian embassy located in that
country. Further, as per the statement of serving constable Annexure P-7, it
appears that the proclamation issued against the petitioner was not publicly
read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the
petitioner was ordinarily residing, as per mandate of Section 82 (2) (i) (a)
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137168
CRM-M-51790-2024 [3]
Cr.P.C.
6. In light of the above, it is established that impugned order was
not passed by the Court concerned, in accordance with law and it deserves
to be set aside. However, the said order was passed more than 9 years back
and as such petitioner deserves to be burdened with certain reasonable cost.
7. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and order dated
24.11.2015 Annexure P-8 whereby the petitioner was declared as
proclaimed offender in FIR Annexure P-1 is hereby set aside subject to cost
of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner in Poor Patients Fund,
PGIMER, Chandigarh.
21.10.2024 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
3 of 3
