Sunil Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 2702 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sunil Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another on 19 March, 2026

                     CRM-M-15198
                           15198-2026 (O&M)           1

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
                                              CHANDIGARH


                     181                                           CRM-M-15198-2026 (O&M)
                                                                   DECIDED ON: 19.03.2026

                     SUNIL KUMAR

                                                                                 .....PETITIONER
                                                          VERSUS

                     STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

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

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


                     Present:     Mr. Deep Singh Saini,, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                  Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana
                                                                  Haryana.


                     SURYA PARTAP
                           P      SINGH, J.

The order dated 13.03.2025 (Annexure P-13),, hereinafter being

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

First Class Karnal, Karnal hereinafter being referred to as 'trial Court' only, is under

challenge in the present petition.

petition. The present petition has been filed under

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

prayer is to quash FIR No.178 dated 23.04.2025 23.04.2025, for the commission of

offence punishable under Section 209 of

, (erstwhile Section 174-A A of IPC), IPC

Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal.

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

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

CRM-M-15198

Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act Act, declared the petitioner to be a

proclaimed person.

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

Section 138 of NI Act and in the abovementioned case due to non-

non

appearance, on various dates non-bailable bailable warrants were issued against the

petitioner. However, However, the same could not be executed as the petitioner was

not residing in his village.

village

4. Subsequently, vide order dated 20.05.2024, the learned trial

Court issued proclamation against the petitioner for 15.10.2024. However,

on 15.10.2024, proclamation was not issued by the concerned Clerk, and

therefore,, it was ordered that the proclamation be issued for 13.03.2025.. It

was also directed that the executing Constable would appear in the Court on

03.02.2025 for getting his statement recorded, regarding publication of the

abovementioned proclamation.

proclamation On 03.02.2025 03.02.2025, proclamation issued against

the petitioner received back duly executed and statement of serving

Constable to this effect was recorded recorded. On 03.02.2025 the case was

adjourned to 13.03.2025 for awaiting appearance of the petitioner.

petitioner

Thereafter after, by virtue of impugned order dated 13.03.2025, the learned trial

Court declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. Consequently,, the

FIR under Section 209 of BNS (erstwhile Section 174 174-A of IPC) was

registered against the petitioner.

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

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

be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the

CRM-M-15198

BNSS (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), was not complied with. 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 to respondent No.1 No.1.

7. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana 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 was not residing in his village.. As

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

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

a proclaimed person. 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 proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing

official had not publicly read the proclamation at the 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 to be a proclaimed person,, 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

CRM-M-15198

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 the petitioner cannot draw any benefit of the technical

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

declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed person.

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 the executing Constable, recorded rded by the

learned trial Court before declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed person.

person

The statement of executing Constable reads as under

under:-

"Stated Stated that in the present complaint, raid was conducted many time at the house of accused Sunil. A copy of proclamation/publication pasted on 30.12.2024 at conspicuous place upon the house of accused and second copy pasted outside the court and third copy has been submitted to the Ahlmed/Bahadur of this court. Accused intentionally did not meet."

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

executing Constable shows that the abovementioned executing Constable

had not publicly read the contents of abovementioned proclamation. The

order dated 13.03.2025 shows that on the basis of above abovementioned mentioned statement

of the executing xecuting Constable,, the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed

person.

15. With regard to the abovementioned mentioned procedure adopted by the

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

CRM-M-15198

CrPC lays down the following steps, to be taken before declaring a person to

be a proclaimed person:-

person:

"(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 Court-house;

(ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circula circulating ting in the place in which such person ordinarily resides."

16. With regard rd 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 tory in nature.

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

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 official nowhere where depicts that the proclamation was

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

as prescribed under un Section 82(2)(i)(a)

i)(a) Cr.P.C. Thus, the impugned order

declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed person is defective and not

sustainable in the 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-15198

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

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

(i)(a), the order declaring the

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

and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been taken 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' Punja ' in CRM-M-21736-2024.

19. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the

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

i.e. non-reading reading of proclamation in public place place, the order dated 13.03.2025

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 13.03.2025 passed

by the learned trial Court, along with FIR No. 178 dated 23.04.2025, under

Section 209 of , Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal Karnal, are hereby quashed, quashed

accordingly accordingly.

21. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

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