Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prabhdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 10 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033391
128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12864-2025
Date of decision: 10.03.2025
PRABHDEEP SINGH
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Sarbjit Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
BRAR J. (ORAL)
1. This is the first petition filed under Section 528 Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS),
(BNSS), 2023 seeking quashing of impugned order
dated 16.07.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar
(Annexure P-5),
5), whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in
a cross-case
case registered vide Rapat
Rapat No.26 dated 03.01.2018 registered under
Sections 452/323/324/148/149 IPC in case bearing FIR No.284 dated
29.12.2017 registered under Sections 323/324/148/149 IPC (Section 307 IPC
added later on) at Police Station Jandiala,
Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural (Anne
(Annexure
P-2).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not
aware regarding the registration of cross-case
cross case against him, due to which, he
could not appear before the learned trial Court and subsequently, the trial
Court vide order dated 16.07.2019, declared him as proclaimed person.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the
petitioner has been declared as 'Proclaimed Person' behind his back when he
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033391
CRM-M-12864
was not in India. He submits that
at the petitioner never received any notice
regarding the same. It is contended that proclamation was issued against the
petitioner without following the drill of Section 82 Cr.P.C. and non
non-
compliance of the mandatory provisions vitiates the entire proceed
proceedings, which
suffers from incurable illegality as he was never served and the impugned
order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner is accused in a cross-version
cross version and all the accused nominated in the
FIR (supra) and cross-case
cr i.e. Rapat (supra
supra) have been acquitted.
Furthermore, the dispute between the parties has been compromised as
discernible from Annexure P-3
P dated 13.01.2025.
4. Notice of motion to respondent No.1 at this stage only.
5. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab
Punjab, who is present in the
Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent
respondent-State and supports the order
passed by the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put
in appearance before the trial Court intentionally and deliberat
deliberately and,
therefore, having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure
his presence. However, he could not controvert the fact that a compromise has
been effected between the parties and all the co-
co-accused nominated in the FIR
(supra) and Rapat (supra)
( ) have already been acquitted by learned trial Court.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the case with their able assistance, the matter is taken up for final
disposal.
7. While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates
curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance
that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033391
CRM-M-12864
a healthy balance between personal liberty of the individual
individual-accused and
interests of the society in promoting law and order. Such procedure must be
compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just
and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
8. A perusal of the impugned
impugned order reveals that the trial Court issued
proclamation without recording reasons of its belief that the petitioner has
absconded or is concealing himself. This Court in the judgment passed in
Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab 2023 (3) RCR (Crim
(Criminal) 406;
2023 (2) Law Herald 1506 has held that the Court is first required to record its
satisfaction before issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and non
non-
recording of the satisfaction itself makes such order suffering from incurable
illegality.
y. In the judgment passed by this Court in Sonu Vs. State of Haryana
2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 319,
319, it has been held that the con
conditions specified in
Section 82 (2) Cr.P.C. for the publication of a proclamation against an
absconder are mandatory. Any non-compliance
compliance therewith cannot be cured as
an 'irregularity' and renders the proclamation and proceedings subsequent
thereto a nullity.
9. The sole purpose of issuance of non
non-bailable warrants or issuance
of proclamation is to secure presence of the accused
accused before the trial Court. The
petitioner, in the present case,
case has himself come forward and a compromise
has also been effected between the parties.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of
the ratio of law laid down in Major
or Singh @ Major (supra), the present
petition is allowed qua the impugned order dated 16.07.2019 (Annexure
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033391
CRM-M-12864
P-5), vide which,
which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person is
quashed.
11. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within a
period of two weeks from today and on his doing so, he shall be admitted to
bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
trial Court, along with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with All India
Pingalwara Charitable Society, Amritsar, for wasting precious time of the
Court.
12. Receipt of payment of cost must be presented before learned trial
Court and learned trial Court is directed to verify the same.
13. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner fails to appear before
the trial Court within a stipulated period, the interim protection granted by this
Court shall be deemed to be vacated.
(HARPREET
HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
March 10, 2025
5 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
