Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sultan Singh vs State Of Haryana on 3 September, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114455
CRM-M-41266-2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.115 CRM-M-41266-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 03.09.2024
Sultan Singh ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Ms. Pooja Jaglan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
*****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
prayer is for quashing of order dated 12.01.2016 (Annexure P2) vide which
the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender in FIR No.67 dated
25.04.2014, under Section 419, 420 & 120-B IPC, registered at Police
Station Israna, Panipat.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the
petitioner has been residing in Australia since 2009 and has not visited India
after year 2014. She relies upon the passport details of the petitioner
Annexure P1. She further submits that the petitioner has been wrongly
declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 12.01.2016 without any prior
notice. She contends that the petitioner was never served through the
Ministry of External Affairs, despite report dated 05.12.2015 (Annexure P4)
by the Executing Officer wherein he clearly stated that the petitioner has
been residing in Australia and without effecting the service of the petitioner
at his foreign address, the learned trial Court has declared the petitioner as a
proclaimed offender without complying with the mandatory provisions of
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114455
Sections 82 & 105 of Cr.P.C. She further submits that all the accused
including the main accused has been acquitted in the present case vide order
dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure P6).
3. Per contra, learned State counsel, has submitted that the
petitioner, despite the proclamation, has failed to appear before the trial
Court and has been rightly declared a proclaimed offender vide the
impugned order and in addition, the petitioner is evading the process of
Court which is highly deprecated on his part and in view of above, he does
not deserve the concession.
4. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties.
5. According to the averments, the petitioner has been residing in
Australia since 2009 and has not visited India after year 2014 and he was
never served through the Ministry of External Affairs, despite report dated
05.12.2015 (Annexure P4) by the Executing Officer wherein he clearly
stated that the petitioner has been residing in Australia. Without effecting the
service of the petitioner at his foreign address, the learned trial Court has
declared the petitioner as a proclaimed offender without complying with the
mandatory provisions of Sections 82 & 105 of Cr.P.C.
6. A person cannot be said to "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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114455
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. The trial Court has not made any effort to effect personal
service of the petitioner through the embassy of India located in the
concerned country where the petitioner was residing at the relevant time.
Thus, making it clear that the impugned order was not passed in consonance
with the mandate of Sections 82 & 105 of Cr.P.C. and is not sustainable in
the eyes of law.
9. Therefore, in light of the afore-said judicial pronouncements
and discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the firm view that the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114455
impugned order dated 12.01.2016 (Annexure P2), vide which the petitioner
has been declared proclaimed offender, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
10. In view of the above, the present petition stands allowed and
the impugned order dated 12.01.2016 (Annexure P2) is set aside/quashed
subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited in Poor Patient
Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh. In case, the petitioner files an
appropriate application for grant of bail before the trial Court within a period
of three months, the trial Court shall consider the same and release him on
bail on furnishing his requisite bail/surety bonds to its satisfaction.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
03.09.2024
Ramandeep Singh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
