Mehar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 19164 P&H

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 19164 P&H
Judgement Date : 23 October, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mehar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 23 October, 2024

Author: Sandeep Moudgil

Bench: Sandeep Moudgil

                                      Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139148


CRM-M-51768-2024 (O&M)                                                  - 1-




123           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH
                             ****
                           CRM-M-51768-2024 (O&M)
                           DECIDED ON: 23.10.2024

MEHAR SINGH
                                                                PETITIONER
                                   VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                                RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present:      Mr. Vrinder Chhibber, Advocate,
              for the petitioner.
              ****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

CRM-42315-2024

Prayer in the present application for placing on record the

copy of complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 by respondent No.2 and AIR ticket of the applicant/petitioner as

Annexures A-1 & A-2.

Application is allowed, as prayed for.

Annexures A-1 & A-2 are taken on record subject to all just

exceptions.

CRM-M-51768-2024

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS,

2023 has been invoked seeking setting aside of the order dated 01.03.2023

(Annexure P-4) in case bearing No. NACT-39-2021, titled as "Raghbir

Singh vs. Mehar Singh etc." passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Rupnagar vide which the petitioner has been declared as Proclaimed

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139148

CRM-M-51768-2024 (O&M) - 2-

Offender.

2. The assertion is that the petitioner came to know about the

impugned order in the month of July and only thereafter, he has filed the

present petition. It is further asserted that due to wrong address mentioned

in the complaint, the complainant has managed to initiate deliberately and

with malafide adverse PO proceedings against the petitioner, which is

totally in violation of provision of Section 82 Cr.P.C. He 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 he was not

residing in India and he had no knowledge about the proceedings initiated

against him.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG, Punjab

having served with an advance copy, 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 the

petitioner 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.

4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

5. 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 whom a warrant has been issued

has absconded or is hiding, making it impossible for the warrant to be

carried out.

6. A person cannot be said to be "abscond" or "evade" the

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139148

CRM-M-51768-2024 (O&M) - 3-

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.

7. 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."

8. From the perusal of the case file as well from the support of

the documents it can be inferred that the petitioner was residing at Italy

when the proclamation was issued, therefore, there was no occasion for

him to evade the process of law intentionally, as he was never served in

accordance with law. Thus the proclamation order dated 01.03.2023

(Annexure P-4) is in gross violation of Section 82 Cr.P.C.

9. Therefore in light of the afore-said judicial pronouncements

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139148

CRM-M-51768-2024 (O&M) - 4-

and discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the firm view that the

impugned order dated 01.03.2023 (Annexure P-4), vide which the