Rajinder Singh Alias Jinder vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 91 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajinder Singh Alias Jinder vs State Of Punjab on 12 January, 2026

                                                                             1
CRM-
CRM-M-63791-
      63791-2025




150 (2nd case)
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH

                                CRM-
                                CRM-M-63791-
                                      63791-2025

Rajinder Singh @ Jinder
                                                                    .Petitioner
                                                                   ....Petitioner
                                         versus

State of Punjab
                                                                  ....Respondent

Date of decision: January 12,
                          12, 2026
Date of Uploading: January 12, 2026

CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:-
Present:         Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

                 Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional AG Punjab.

                                         *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS,

2023,, seeking quashing/ quashing setting aside of the impugned order dated

12.11.2009 (Annexure P-4) P passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist

Class, Ludhiana, Ludhiana, whereby, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person,,

in a criminal case No.24/1 of 25.07.2003 titled as "State Vs. Bharpur Singh"

Singh"..

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the

impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been declare declared d a proclaimed

person, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely

implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner

1 of 8

CRM-

CRM-M-63791- 63791-2025

was admitted to bail by the trial Court, vide order dated 25.07.2003

(Annexure P-2) and had been appearing regularly before the trial Court.

Learned counsel has iterated that vide order dated 22.11.2007, the bail of the

petitioner was cancelled and thereafter, vide order dated 12.11.2009, the

petitioner was declared as proclaimed person. Learned counsel has argued

that the petitioner was unemployed and upon getting an opportunity, he

immigrated to Greece and settled there. Learned counsel has argued that the

petitioner was not aware about the proceedings pending against him.

Learned counsel has further argued that vide judgment dated 04.09.2010

(Annexure P-5), co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Bharpur Singh and

Ajit Singh were acquitted by the trial Court of the charge(s) framed against

them as the prosecution had failed to prove its case. Learned counsel has

further iterated that the serving constable, who was required to made the

publication of the proclamation, did not follow the procedure envisaged

under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C., in its true essence, as he had not read the

publication in some conspicuous place. Learned counsel has urged that non-

appearance of the petitioner was neither willful nor intentional and he came

to know about this fact only from his other co-accused. Learned counsel has

further argued that the petitioner did not try to evade the proceedings

pending against him. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order is ex

facie illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law and is, therefore,

liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order has

been passed without properly scrutinizing or verifying the authenticity of the

report submitted by the serving official. Consequently, the order declaring

2 of 8

CRM-

CRM-M-63791- 63791-2025

the petitioner as a proclaimed person (wrongly written as proclaimed

offender in the impugned order) is unsustainable in the eyes of law and

deserves to be quashed.

3. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of an affidavit

dated 12.12.2025, which is already on record. Raising submissions in

tandem with the said reply, 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 was aware about the

proceedings pending against him, but he intentionally absented himself and

went to Greece without seeking prior permission from the trial Court.

Consequently, the petitioner has been rightly declared as proclaimed person,

vide impugned order. It has further been pointed out that the learned Court

below 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 adhered to. It is

trite law that the provisions of Section 82 are mandatory in nature, and any

3 of 8

CRM-

CRM-M-63791- 63791-2025

non-compliance thereof vitiates the entire proceedings. In the present case,

the petitioner was admitted to bail by the trial Court. It is asserted that as the

petitioner was unemployed, therefore, upon getting an opportunity, he went

to Greece and settled there, which is stated to be not done deliberately by

him. It is further asserted that co-accused of the petitioner have already been

acquitted by the trial Court qua the charge(s) framed against them. It is

argued that the petitioner came to know about pendency of proceedings

against him only through his co-accused, and upon gaining such knowledge,

he approached this Court vide instant petition seeking quashing/ setting

aside of the impugned order declaring him a proclaimed person.

A perusal of the zimni orders brought forth by the petitioner,

vide CRM-46622-2025, shows that the serving official, who made the

publication in question, had not read the proclamation on some conspicuous

place as per the requirement of provision under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. It

has been asserted that no such satisfaction, as required under Section 82 of

the Cr. P.C., regarding due execution of proclamation against the petitioner

has been recorded in the impugned order. However, the trial Court vide

impugned order dated 12.11.2009 declared the petitioner as proclaimed

person which is not shown to have been executed in conformity with Section

82 of the Cr. P.C.

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

4 of 8

CRM-

CRM-M-63791- 63791-2025

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 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'

5 of 8

CRM-

CRM-M-63791- 63791-2025

"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).

(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.

6 of 8

CRM-

CRM-M-63791- 63791-2025

(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).

(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 an intent to

evade arrest. This foundational requirement is conspicuously absent in the

present case. A perusal of the impugned order dated 12.11.2009 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 his appearance.

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-

7 of 8

CRM-

CRM-M-63791- 63791-2025

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. and to bring to an end the criminal

proceedings initiated in the light of the criminal case 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 12.11.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, whereby, the petitioner was declared

as proclaimed person, in a criminal case No.24/1 of 25.07.2003 titled as

"State Vs. Bharpur Singh" as well as the other consequential proceedings

arising therefrom, are quashed.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of

accordingly.

(SUMEET GOEL) GOEL) JUDGE January 12, 12, 2026

mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No

8 of 8