Harbans Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 2637 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Harbans Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 18 March, 2026

                     CRM-M-14406
                           14406-2026 (O&M)          1

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
                                              CHANDIGARH


                     154+173                                      CRM-12170-2026 IN/&
                                                                  CRM-M-14406-2026 (O&M)
                                                                  DECIDED ON: 18.03.2026

                     HARBANS KAUR

                                                                               .....PETITIONER
                                                         VERSUS

                     STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
                                                                            .....RESPONDENT

                     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P
                                                      PARTAP SINGH


                     Present:     Mr. Tushaar Madaan,, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                  Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
                                                                               Punjab.

                     SURYA PARTAP
                           P      SINGH, J.

CRM-12170-2026

This is an application seeking for placing on record certain

documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is hereby

allowed and the documents annexed with the application are taken on

record.

CRM-M-14406-2026

2. The order dated 01.05.2014 (Annexure P-3),, hereinafter being

referred to as 'impugned order', order' passed by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate Kapurthala, hereinafter being referred to as 'trial Court' only, only is

under challenge in the present petition.

petition. The present petition has been filed

CRM-M-14406

under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Sanhita,, 2023,

hereinafter ereinafter referred to as 'BNSS' only.

3. By virtue of abovementioned order, tthe he learned trial Court

while holding a trial for the commission of ooffence fence punishable under

Sectionss 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, declared the

petitioner to be a proclaimed offender.

3. In nut-shell, shell, the facts emerging from record are that the

petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under

Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B 120 B of IPC and in the abovementioned

case due to non-appearance, non appearance, on various occasions occasions, the non-bailable bailable warrants

were issued against the petitioner. However, However, the same could not be executed

as the petitioner had left the country and settled abroad abroad.

4. Subsequently, vide order dated 01.03.2014, the learned trial

Court issued proclamation against the petitioner for 01.05.2014. Thereafter after,

by virtue of impugned order dated 01.05.2014 01.05.2014, the learned trial Court after

considering the report of executing Constable Constable, dated 07.03.2014, declared

the petitioner a proclaimed offender.

5. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the

ground, that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and

deserves to be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section

84 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), was not complied with, with

while declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender.. In this regard, it has

been specifically alleged by the petitioner that the proclamation was not

publicly read, as prescribed under the law.

6. Notice of motion.

CRM-M-14406

7. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears

on behalf of respondent-State.

respondent Hence service of notice upon the State is

hereby dispensed with.

8. Heard.

9. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner

was never served with any summons as he had left the country.. As per

learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an

error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner to be a

proclaimed offender.. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of

the basic steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading

of proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing

constable had not publicly read the proclamation at aany public place.

10. In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned

counsel for the petitioner that no effort was made by the learned trial Court

to serve process upon the petitioner on his correct address, and that because

of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, in declaring the

petitioner itioner to be proclaimed offender,, the impugned order is liable to be set

aside.

11. The learned State Counsel has controverted the

abovementioned arguments. He has contended that in the present case, the

petitioner is a person, who right from the very beginning was aware of the

pendency of criminal proceedings against him, but opted not to appear

before the Court and remained absent for long. As per learned State Counsel,

in view of above, above the petitioner cannot draw any benefit of the technical

CRM-M-14406

defect, if any, which might have occurred inadvertently, in the process of

declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender.

12. The record has been perused carefully.

13. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner ha has placed on

record the copy of statement of Executing Constable Constable, recorded by the

learned trial Court, before declaring the petitioner to be proclaimed offender.

offender

The statement of Executing Constable, namely Jaswinder Singh dated

07.03.2014 reads as under:-

07.03.2014,

"It is respectfully submitted that in the presence of Chunni Lal, it was ascertained after considerable inquiry that the accused Harbans Kaur wife of Late Som Nath, residence of Village Bilga, District Jalandhar, has left her house and is residing at some other place. Therefore, re, copies of the proclamation issued by the Hon'ble Court were pasted at a conspicuous place in the Village and also affixed on the Notice Board of the Hon'ble Court"

14. A bare perusal of the above above-mentioned mentioned statement of the

Executing Constable shows that the above above-named named Executing Constable had

not publicly read the contents of abovementioned proclamation. The order

dated 01.05.2014 shows that on the basis of above abovementioned mentioned statement of

the Executing Constable, the petitioner has been declared the proclaimed

offender.

15. With regard to the above-mentioned mentioned procedure adopted by the

Executing Constable, it is relevant to mention here that Section 82(2) (2) of

CrPC lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before

declaring a person to be a proclaimed offender offender:-

"(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:

follows:-

CRM-M-14406

(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 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."

16. With regard to mandatory nature of above abovementioned mentioned procedure,

it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of

abovementioned provisions of Section 82(2) (2) of CrPC is mandatory in nature.

It has also been held that in case the above process is not followed in letter let

and spirit, the impugned order declaring a person to be a proclaimed

offender/proclaimed person is defective.

17. In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention here that the

statement ement of executing Constable nowhere nowhere depicts that the proclamatio proclamationn was

read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides,

as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., and the impugned order

declaring the abovesaid abovesaid person to be a proclaimed offender is defective and

not sustainable in the th eyes of law.

18. This Court in the cases of 'Jarnail Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab

&Anr.' CRM-M-27944 CRM of 2024 and 'Gagandeep Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab' Punjab

CRM-M-50704 50704-2024, has observed that if a proclamation is not read at a

conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily

CRM-M-14406

resides, as prescribed under Section 82(2) 82(2)(i)(a),

(i)(a), the order declaring the

abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed offender is defective

and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been taken n by this

High Court in the cases of 'Pal Pal Singh Santa Singh v. State State' AIR 1955 Punjab

18 and 'Tajinder Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab' Punjab' in CRM-M-21736-2024.

19. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the

abovementioned factors, fact as there was a defect in affixation of proclamation, proclamation

i.e. non-reading reading of proclamation in public place place, the order dated 01.05.2014

passed by the learned trial Court is hereby held to be perverse, defective and

unsustainable sustainable in the eyes of law.

20. As a sequel to abovementioned observations, the present

petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 01.05.2014 passed

by the learned trial Court is hereby quashed quashed.

Gaurav Thakur

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/ Yes/No