[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Noman Khan vs State Of Haryana on 9 December, 2025
1
CRM-
CRM-M-44463-
44463-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-44463-
44463-2025
Noman Khan
....Petitioner
Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
Date of reserve: December 04, 2025
Date of pronouncement:
pronouncement: December 09, 2025
Judgment pronounced: Full
Date of Uploading: December 09, 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:
Present Mr. Sunil Panwar, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Mohit Rana, Advocate,
Mr. Dhruv Singh, Advocate and
Ms. Tejaswini, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Priyanka Sadar Thakur, Senior DAG Haryana.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr. P.C.')
P.C.'), seeking quashing of impugned
order dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad,
Faridabad whereby, the petitioner has been declared as
proclaimed person,
person in case FIR No.52dated
dated 24.01.2022, registered for
commission of offence punishable under Section
Sections 22C & 29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act')
Act'),, at Police
Station Dabua, Faridabad.
1 of 8
CRM-
CRM-M-44463-
44463-2025
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned
order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person, is wholly
illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR and that the
proclamation proceedings have been conducted in complete violation of the
statutory mandate. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner could not have
been declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure P-3)
when the proclamation itself had been issued for appearance on 31.10.2023, in
terms of the order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the Court below. It is further
argued that the issuance of warrants of appearance and the subsequent
proclamation were obtained on the basis of false and baseless reports, alleging
that despite several attempts at the petitioner's address, he could not be
arrested. Learned counsel submits that, on the contrary, the petitioner was never
contacted, even though he has been continuously residing with his family at his
permanent address and has never attempted to evade the process of law. It is
further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR on
the basis of the fourth supplementary disclosure statement of a co-accused.
Learned counsel points out that the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Uttawar,
as well as several Panchayat members and the Lambardar, have categorically
stated in their affidavits--appended with the petition--that no summons or
proclamation notice was ever issued or pasted in the village on 07.07.2023, and
they have also attested to the good conduct and character of the petitioner. It is
argued that the entire process of issuing the proclamation is illegal, contrary to
the mandatory statutory provisions, and has caused serious prejudice to the
petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is ex facie illegal,
2 of 8
CRM-
CRM-M-44463-
44463-2025
arbitrary and unsustainable, having been passed without properly scrutinizing
or verifying the authenticity of the alleged service reports. Consequently,
learned counsel asserts that the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed
person is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside and quashed.
3. Referring to the reply/ status report by way of an affidavit dated
30.08.2025of Vinod Kumar, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Badkhal,
Faridabad, learned State counsel opposed the present petition. While refuting
the case set up by the petitioner, detailed arguments were advanced on merits,
contending that the petitioner has been rightly declared as proclaimed person,
vide impugned order. Learned State counsel has submitted that the learned
Court below has scrupulously adhered to the procedure prescribed under
Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and no infirmity or
irregularity is discernible from the record. Learned State counsel has, therefore,
contended that the conduct of the petitioner clearly establishes his deliberate
defiance of the judicial process and misuse of the concession of bail.
Accordingly, dismissal of the instant petition has been prayed for.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully
perused the record of the case.
5. The law is well settled that no person can be declared a
proclaimed offender/person unless the procedure prescribed under Section 82
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is meticulously complied with. It is
trite that the provisions of Section 82 are mandatory in nature and any deviation
or non-compliance vitiates the entire proclamation proceedings. In the present
case, proclamation against the petitioner was ordered to be issued on
05.06.2023 for his appearance on 31.10.2023. However, vide the impugned
3 of 8
CRM-
CRM-M-44463-
44463-2025
order dated 12.09.2023, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person--
much prior to the very date fixed for his appearance, i.e., 31.10.2023. The
petitioner has specifically pleaded that no attempt was ever made to contact
him for investigation or for giving intimation regarding his alleged
involvement, despite his continuously residing with his family at his permanent
address. Further, the Sarpanch, Member Panchayat, and the Lambardar of the
concerned village have, by way of affidavits (Annexures P-5 to P-8),
categorically stated that no summons or proclamation notice was ever issued or
pasted against the petitioner in the village. Despite this, the trial Court, vide
impugned order dated 12.09.2023, declared the petitioner a proclaimed person,
and the record does not demonstrate that such proclamation had been executed
in conformity with the mandatory requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C.
Significantly, the procedural safeguards embedded in Section 82 are not mere
formalities but substantive protections intended to ensure that a person is not
branded as a proclaimed offender/ person in a mechanical or arbitrary manner.
The premature declaration of proclamation, coupled with the absence of any
proof of due service or public notice, strikes at the very root of natural justice
and renders the impugned order legally unsustainable.
6. This Court finds the course adopted by the Court below is
antithesis to the provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. The Court below has committed illegality by issuing the said
proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 without
compliance of mandatory requirements of law. The learned Court below, while
declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person, failed to satisfy itself regarding
due execution of proclamation and proceeded in a mechanical manner. Such an
4 of 8
CRM-
CRM-M-44463-
44463-2025
order being violative of mandatory provisions of law, cannot be sustained.
Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 reads as under:
"82. Proclamation for person absconding. - (1) If any Court has reason to
believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against
whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing
himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a
written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a
specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such
proclamation.
(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows: -
(i)(a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or
village in which such person ordinarily resides;
(b) 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;
(c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the court-
house;
(ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to
be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such
person ordinarily resides.
(3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the
effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the
manner specified in clause (i) of sub-section (2), shall be conclusive
evidence that the requirements of this Section have been complied with,
and that the proclamation was published on such day.
[(4) Where a proclamation published under sub-section (1) is in respect of
a person accused of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 304, 364,
367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459,
or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and such person fails to
appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the
Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a
proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect.
(5) The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration
made by the Court under sub-section (4) as they apply to the proclamation
published under sub-section (1).]"
7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with invocation
of the provision of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against an
accused in the case of 'Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal)
319', held as under:
319'
"9. The essential requirements of section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for
issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder and
declaring him as proclaimed person/offender may be summarized as
under:-
(i) Prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court is sine qua non for
issuance and publication of the proclamation and the Court has to first
issue warrant of arrest against the person concerned. (See Rohit Kumar v.
State of Delhi: 2008 Crl. J. 2561).
5 of 8
CRM-
CRM-M-44463-
44463-2025
(ii) There must be a report before the Court that the person against whom
warrant was issued had absconded or had been concealing himself so that
the warrant of arrest could not be executed against him. However, the
Court is not bound to take evidence in this regard before issuing a
Proclamation under section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. (See Rohit Kumar
v. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561).
(iii) The Court cannot issue the Proclamation as a matter of course because
the Police is asking for it. The Court must be prima facie satisfied that the
person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest,
previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence. (See
BishundayalMahton and others v. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366 and
Devender Singh Negi v. State of U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783).
(iv) The requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the
proclamation requiring such person to appear on such date at the specified
place. Such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of
issuance and publication of the proclamation. (See Gurappa Gugal and
others v. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali v. State of
Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (CRIMINAL) 339).
(v) Where the period between issuance and publication of the
proclamation and the specified date of hearing is less than thirty days, the
accused cannot be declared a proclaimed person/offender and the
proclamation has to be issued and published again. (See Dilbagh Singh v.
State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) RCR (CRIMINAL) 166 and Ashok
Kumar v. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (CRIMINAL) 550)
(vi) The Proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in
section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. 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 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. The three sub-clauses (a)- (c) in
section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 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. (See Pawan Kumar
Gupta v. The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368). Where the Court so orders
a copy of the proclamation has to be additionally published in a daily
newspaper circulating in the place in which the accused ordinarily resides.
Advisably, proclamation has to be issued with four copies so that one each
of the three copies of the proclamation may be affixed to some
conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused
ordinarily resides, to some conspicuous place of such town or village and
to some conspicuous part of the Courthouse and report regarding
publication may be made on the fourth copy of the proclamation.
Additional copy will be required where the proclamation is also required to
be published in the newspaper.
(vii) Statement of the serving officer has to be recorded by the Court as to
the date and mode of publication of the proclamation. (See Birad Dan v.
State: 1958 CriLJ 965).
(viii) The Court issuing the proclamation has to make a statement in
writing in its order that the proclamation was duly published on a specified
day in a manner specified in section 82(2)(i) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. Such
statement in writing by the Court is declared to be conclusive evidence that
the requirements of Section 82 have been complied with and that the
proclamation was published on such day. (See Birad Dan v. State: 1958
CriLJ 965).
6 of 8
CRM-
CRM-M-44463-
44463-2025
(xi) The conditions specified in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for the
publication of a Proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any
non-compliance therewith cannot be cured as an 'irregularity' and renders
the Proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity. (See
Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu v. State of U.P. and another: 1994 CriLJ
1783 and Pal Singh v. The State: 1955 CriLJ 318)."
8. It is pertinent to mention that it is by now a settled principle of
law that before issuing a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the Court must
record its satisfaction that the accused, against whom the proclamation is
sought to be issued, is absconding or concealing himself with intent to evade
arrest. This foundational requirement is conspicuously absent in the present
case. A perusal of the impugned order dated 12.09.2023 reveals that no such
satisfaction was recorded by the Court below, nor was there any material to
justify the inference that the petitioner had absconded or was deliberately
avoiding arrest.
9. The provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
having serious ramifications qua the right of the accused concerning his
presence in the criminal trial proceedings ought not be and cannot be invoked
in casual and cavalier manner. The requirement of recording of satisfaction,
that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrant of his
arrest cannot be executed, as embodied in Section 82 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, is to be scrupulously complied with based on relevant material
available on record of the case in that regard. Non-adherence to said
requirement while declaring the accused as proclaimed person vitiates the
proclamation proceedings initiated against the accused.
10. Hence, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal
proceedings pending against the petitioner. It is, therefore, an appropriate case
for the exercise of powers under Section 528 of BNSS/Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
7 of 8
CRM-
CRM-M-44463-
44463-2025
and to bring to an end the criminal proceedings initiated in the light of the FIR
ibid against the petitioner.
11. In view of the above findings, in the entirety of facts and
circumstances of the present case, the present petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, whereby, the petitioner has been
declared as proclaimed person, in case FIR No.52 dated 24.01.2022, registered
for commission of offence punishable under Sections 22C & 29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'), at Police
Station Dabua, Faridabad as well as the other consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUMEET GOEL)
GOEL)
JUDGE
December 09, 2025
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
