Khuswant Singh Maan Alias Khushwant ... vs State Of Punjab And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 16204 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Khuswant Singh Maan Alias Khushwant ... vs State Of Punjab And Another on 4 September, 2024

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115437

CRM-M-33688
      33688-2023 (O&M)                                                   -1--




     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
115+128
                                                  CRM-M-33688-20232023 (O&M)
                                                   Date of decision: 04.09.2024

Khuswant
    want Singh
         Singh Maan @ Khushwant Singh @ Gagan                      ...Petitioner

                                         Versus

State of Punjab and another                                     ...Respondents
                                                                ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:-   Mr. Rishu Bajaj, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. CRM-35733 35733-2024

Allowed as prayed for.

Documents are taken on record as Annexures P P-6 and P-7.

2. CRM-M M-33688-2023 (O&M)

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section

482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 15.07.2010 (Annexur (Annexure P-2),, passed

by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fatehgarh Sahib in case titled as State

vs. Khushwant Singh @ Gagan, Gagan, arising out of FIR No. 167 dated 12.10.2009, 12.10.2009

registered under Sections Section 406 and 420 of IPC at Police Station Fatehgarh

Sahib,, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person.

3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the

grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been

falsely implicated in the aforesaid FIR FIR. It is further er submitted that the

aforesaid FIR had been registered on 12.10.2009, whereas the petitioner had

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115437

CRM-M-33688 33688-2023 (O&M) -2--

left for USA on 27.11.2008 and since then he had been residing there. He was

never served with the notices/warrants issued by the trial Court at his ordinary

place of residence in USA and he was not aware of the pendency of the

proceedings against him. While stressing that he had been declared a

proclaimed offender without following the proper procedure prescribed under

Section 82 Cr.P.C., Cr.P.C. it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner was having

knowledge about the pendency of the trial and had intentionally avoided his

appearance pearance before the trial Court, and as such he had been rightly declared a

proclaimed offender.. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be

dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone

through the material placed on record.

6. On giving due deliberations to the con contentions tentions as raised by

learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed

by the trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Section 82

Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed

offender,, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated

15.07.2010 suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with

all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

7. There are catena of judgments of different High C Courts ourts

discussing the requirements necessary for issuance and publication of

proclamation against an absconder under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and for declaring

him as a proclaimed person/offender. These requirements have been discussed

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115437

CRM-M-33688 33688-2023 (O&M) -3--

from time to time in Rohit Kumar Vs. Stat Statee of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561,

Bishundayal Mahton and others Vs. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366,

Devender Singh Negi Vs. State of U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783,

Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826, Shokat Ali

Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (Crimin (Criminal) al) 339, Dilbagh Singh Vs. State

of Punjab : (P&H) 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166, Ashok Kumar Vs. State

of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 550, Pawan Kumar

Gupta Vs. The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368, Birad Dan Vs. State : 1958

CriLJ 965, Negi alias Debu Vs. State of U.P. and another, 1994 Cri LJ 1783

and Pal Singh Vs. The State : 1955 CriLJ 318.

8. After going through the material placed on record as well as the

copies of zimini orders passed by the trial Court Court, it is revealed that on

27.04.2010 .04.2010, since the non-bailable bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were

received back unserved, the trial Court had ordered for issuance of

proclamation against him for 11.06.20100. On 11.06.2010, the proclamation

was received executed. However, the case was adjourned to 15.07.2010

awaiting the appearance of the petitioner. Thereafter, since the petitioner did

not appear before the trial Court even on 15.07.2010, he was declared a

proclaimed claimed offender by passing the impugned order. However, a perusal of

the report of the serving police official reveals that the proclamation was

executed on 27.05.2010 requiring the petitioner to cause his appearance on

11.06.2010 before the trial Court, which means that he was not granted

statutory period of 30 days to cause his appearance before the trial Court.

Hence, the same was in clear violation of the provisions of Section 82(1)

Cr.P.C., as per which, a specified time of not less than 30 days is re required quired to

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115437

CRM-M-33688 33688-2023 (O&M) -4--

be given to the accused from the date of publishing such proclamation which

is mandatory in nature. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Gurappa

Gugal and others Vs. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali Vs.

State of Haryna : 2020(2) 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339.

9. A perusal of the statement of the serving police official further

reveals that the proclamation was not read over in some conspicuous place of

the town or village in which the petitioner was supposed to be residing. As

per Section 82 (2) of the Cr.P.C., Cr.P.C. for publication, the proclamation has to be

first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which

the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some

conspicuous part of the house or or homestead in which the accused ordinarily

resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a

copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the

Court-house.

      house. The three sub-clauses
                       sub         (a)-(c)
                                       (c) in Section 82 (2
                                                         (2)(i)
                                                           )(i) of the Cr.P.C.

are conjunctive and not disjunctive, which means that there would be no valid

publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are

proved. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs.

The State te of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368.

10. Accordingly, in view of the discussion as made above and also in

view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities authorities,, the present

petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.07.2010 (Annexure P-2), P

passed assed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fatehgarh Sahib in case titled as

State vs. Khushwant Singh @ Gagan, Gagan, arising out of FIR No. 167 dated

12.10.2009 registered under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC at Police Station 12.10.2009,

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115437

CRM-M-33688 33688-2023 (O&M) -5--

Fatehgarh Sahib, Sahib, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed

person,, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

11. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court

concerned within a period of six weeks, subject to orde orderr for grant of

anticipatory bail, if any passed on his petition to be filed under Section 438 of

the Cr.P.C. In the absence of any order for grant of anticipatory bail and on

such surrender, the petitioner shall be liable to be remanded to judicial

custody subject to any order for grant of regular bail to be passed by the

concerned Court in accordance with law.

12. Needless to observe that in case any application is filed before

the concerned Court for grant of regular bail, then the concerned Court shall

be bound to dispose of the same expeditiously and that nothing in this order

shall be treated as expression of any opinion on merits so as to bind or

influence the concerned Court in disposal of the same.

13. Till the appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court, his

arrest shall hall remain remai stayed.

14. It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before

the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today, this petition shall be

deemed to be dismissed.

04.09.2024                                                (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari                                                 JUDGE




          Whether speaking/reasoned
                  speaki                                  Yes/No

          Whether reportable                              Yes/No




                                      5 of 5