[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ranjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 2 April, 2026

           CRM-M-61245-2025                              1



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


           157
                                                                CRM-M-61245-2025
                                                                Date of decision: 02.04.2026

           Ranjit Singh through SPA
                                                                                       ......Petitioner
                                                           Versus
           State of Punjab
                                                                                      .....Respondent

           CORAM:               HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY
           Present:             Ms. Pragti Kumari, Advocate for the petitioner.
                                Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, DAG, Punjab.
           AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner, who is an

accused in case FIR No.14 dated 14.02.2012 under Sections

323,324,427,452,148,149 IPC registered at P.S Goraya, District Jalandhar, through

his Special Power of attorney Holder Surjit Kaur-mother of petitioner, seeking

quashing of order dated 15.11.2014 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned JMIC,

Phillaur vide which petitioner has been declared as "proclaimed offender".

2. Two fold submissions have been raised by learned counsel;

02.04.2026 firstly, that requirement of Sub Section (2) of Section 82 Cr.P.C was

not complied with in letter and spirit inasmuch as the Executing Constable did not

read out proclamation publicly in some conspicuous place of the town or village

where petitioner resides.

Second leg of submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner

is that the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. Falsity of the case set up

by the complainant is apparent from the fact that the other accused, who faced the

trial, were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. That apart, complainant

MANOJ KUMARhas also entered into compromise with the present petitioner, copy of which has

been placed on record. It is further the submission of learned counsel that

quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise has also been filed and the same is

listed before this Court.

3. Notice of motion.

4. At the asking of the Court, Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, DAG Punjab,

accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Mr. Dishant, Advocate has

appeared for the complainant and filed his Vakalatnama. He has endorsed the

factum of compromise.

5. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to a

judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-23777-2020 titled Sonu

V/s. State of Haryana, decided on 06.10.2020, wherein the essential requirements

of section 82 Cr.P.C. for issuance and publication of proclamation against an

absconder and declaring him as proclaimed person/offender were discussed 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 Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561).

(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.. (See Rohit Kumar Vs. 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 Bishundayal Mahton and others Vs. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366 and Devender Singh Negi Vs.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 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 21:52 I attest to the accuracy and publication of the proclamation. (See Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. State of authenticity of this order

Mysore : 1969 Cri LJ 826 and Shokat Ali Vs. 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 Vs. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166 and Ashok Kumar Vs. 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.. 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. 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 Vs. 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 Court-house 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 Vs. 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.. 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 Vs. State : 1958 CriLJ 965).

(xi) The conditions specified in Section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C. 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

Vs. State of U.P. and another : 1994 CriLJ 1783 and Pal Singh Vs. The State :

1955 CriLJ 318).

6. Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, it is, thus, clear that

the Executing Constable did not adhere to the procedure so prescribed under Sub

Section (2) of Section 82 Cr.P.C, when he visited the residence of petitioner. From

the statement of the Constable, it can be inferred that he only affixed copy of the

proclamation at the outer door of the house of the accused, a copy at public place

and a copy on the notice board of the court. Admittedly, he did not read the

publication at some conspicuous place of the town or village where the petitioner

resides.

For want of procedural requirement, the publication cannot be said to

be in sync with the spirit of Section 82 Cr.P.C. That apart, some of the accused

who faced trial have already been acquitted of the charges levelled against them. A

copy of the said judgment appended along with the petition has also been looked

into. Moreover, complainant has also amicably settled the dispute with petitioner

accused vide compromise deed dated 10.10.2025 (P-9).

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned order

dated 15.11.2014, whereby the petitioner was declared Proclaimed Person, is set

aside.

7. Present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to

surrender before the trial Court concerned to face the trial within a period of 15

days. He shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the