[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Randip Sharma Alias Ranvir Kumar Alias ... vs State Of Punjab on 21 April, 2026
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
139 CRM-M-70764-2025
Date of Decision: 21.04.2026
RANDIP SHARMA @ RANVIR KUMAR @
RANDEEP SINGH @ MONU PANDIT & ANR.
... Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY.
****
Present: Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. M.S. Atwal, DAG, Punjab.
****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
Prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the impugned
order dated 19.03.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned JMIC,
Phagwara in a case bearing FIR No.79 dated 30.09.2019 under Sections 307,
341, 323, 506, 427, 120-B, 148 and 149 of IPC registered at Police Station
Rawalpindi, District Kapurthala, Punjab, whereby the petitioners have been
declared as proclaimed offenders.
2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners were not named in
the FIR and the came to be nominated on the basis of a supplementary
statement made by the complainant after 15 months vide DDR No.28 dated
24.12.2020. The petitioners were declared as proclaimed offenders on
09.03.2021 without serving proper notice and adopting proper procedure as
per law. At that point of time, the petitioners were residing in House No.1796,
Nirvana Cooperative Society, Sector 49, Chandigarh, for which reference is
made to Annexures P-3 and P-4 and thereafter, nearby 20.12.2021, they
shifted to village Dhinpur, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar, for which
reference is made to Annexures P-5 and P-6. It was only in April 2023, when
the petitioners came to know about the present FIR, whereupon they
immediately approached the complainant and amicably settled the matter vide
compromise deed dated 31.05.2023, for which reference is made to Annexure
P-7. Thereafter the petitioners alongwith other co-accused approached this
Court by filing a petition bearing No.30603 of 2023 seeking quashing of the
FIR on the basis of compromise as also the order dated 09.03.2021 vide which
the petitioners were declared proclaimed offenders; but unfortunately, during
the pendency of the said petition, the complainant backed out from the said
compromise and resultantly the petitioners had to withdraw the
abovementioned petition vide order dated 18.02.2025. Counsel for the
petitioners further submits that the provisions of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. were
not complied with inasmuch as the mandatory period of 30 days from the date
of effecting of proclamation till hearing was not granted. Even otherwise, the
service of proclamation was not properly effected due to change of address.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners be
permitted to join the proceedings in the present matter, for which one
opportunity is prayed for that may be subject to the costs. To buttress the
submissions, reliance is placed upon judgments in the cases of CRM-M-
29878-2022, Sardar Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and another,
decided on 30.08.2022, Uttam Sharma vs. State of Punjab and another,
CRM-M-31481-2021, dated 29.09.2021 and Ashok Kumar vs. State of
Haryana and another, CRM-M-13638-2013, decided on 05.08.2013.
3. Notice of motion.
4. At asking of the Court, Mr. M.S. Atwal, DAG, Punjab accepts
notice and submits that the order passed against the petitioners is legal and
valid on account of the fact that they had absented from the proceedings before
the trial Court without any just cause.
5. Heard.
6. It would be apposite to refer to the provisions of Section 82 (1)
Cr.P.C. which reads thus:-
"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) xx xx xx xx
(3) xx xx xx xx."
6. Perusal of impugned order shows that the proclamation issued
against the petitioners was received back on 27.01.2021 but it is nowhere
mentioned in the said order that as to for which date the said proclamation
was issued and as whether the date of appearance was mentioned therein or
not. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that as whether the petitioners
were given the 30 days' time to appear before the Court or not and as to on
which date the said period of 30 days elapsed. Even the trial Court did not
bother to record the statement of the executing police official. A gainful
reference can be made to the judgment in Ashok Kumar (supra), relevant
para of which reads thus:
"A copy of the proclamation was also affixed at
conspicuous part of the Court house, which means that the
publication was effected on 9.2.2013 for 6.3.2013, which
shows that after the publication of the notice, the accused
was not given the mandatory period of 30 days to appear
before the Court. The mere fact that the Court adjourned
it after the period of 30 days will not be treated as
compliance of the provisions of Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C."
7. The aforesaid judgment was relied upon in Uttam Sharma
(supra), wherein the order of proclamation was set aside, as a clear 30 days'
time from the date of publication was not afforded before issuing absconding
warrant against the accused as per the statutory provisions of Section 82
Cr.P.C.
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the requisite
procedure as mandated by Section 82 Cr.P.C. was not completely followed in
letter and spirit, thus, the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of
the process and deserves to be quashed, as held in Ramesh Chandra vs. State
of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1634.
9. Considering the fact that the absence of the petitioner was not
willful or deliberate and his readiness and willingness to surrender and join
the proceedings, in case one opportunity is granted to the petitioner, no
prejudice shall be caused to any of the parties, rather his joining the
proceedings would help in expediting the trial. This Court in light of the
judgments referred to above being applicable to the instant case, finds that the
ends of justice would be adequately met if the present petition is allowed.
10. In view of the afore-mentioned judgments and the facts and
circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 05.12.2023, is set aside.
11. He is directed to surrender before the trial Court on or before
10.04.2026 and on so doing, shall release him on bail subject to its satisfaction
and deposit costs of Rs.10,000/- each with Shree Mata Mansa Devi Bhandar
Committee Charitable Trust (Regd.) having its Account No.50100238189041,
IFSC Code-HDFC0000108, HDFC Bank, Sector-8, Panchkula. On furnishing
bail/surety bonds, he is also directed to furnish undertaking by way of an
affidavit that he will appear on each and every date of hearing before the trial
Court, unless specifically exempted by the Court. He shall not leave the
country without prior permission of the Court. The trial Court may impose
any other condition that it may deem appropriate in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
12. The petition is disposed of.
13. Before parting with this order, it is made abundantly clear that in
case the petitioner does not adhere to the aforesaid, the present petition shall
be deemed to have been dismissed without any reference to this Court.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
APRIL 21, 2026. JUDGE
Rajender
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
