Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravi vs State Of Haryana on 15 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005451
CRM-M--11664-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
288 CRM-M-11664-2024
Date of decision: 15.01.202
.2025
Ravi
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Abhishek Goyal, Advocate for
Mr. Amit Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, DAG Haryana.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
1973, seeking setting-aside
setting of order dated 24.11.2022 (Annexure P
P-4)
4) passed
by the trial Court whereby the bail granted to the petitioner stands cancelled
and his bail bonds and surety bonds stand forfeited to the State as also order
dated 12.06.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Chief JJudicial
udicial Magistrate,
Kurukshetra whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed person in case
No.CHI/305/2016 in FIR No.55 of 2016 dated 04.02.2016 registered at
Police Station Thanesar Sadar, District Kurukshetra
Kurukshetra.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner hhas
as drawn the attention of
this Court to order dated 05.03.2024 passed by this Court whereby it was
directed that in case the petitioner caused appearance before the concerned
Court and applies for bail, his plea shall be decided within three days.
Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner appeared before the concerned
Court and was admitted to bail vide order dated 13.03.2024 passed by Chief
Judicial Magistrate,
Magistrate Kurukshetra.. Learned counsel seeks to place on record
1 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 23:54:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005451
CRM-M–11664-2024 2
copy of the order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the trial Court
Court, which is taken
on record.
2.1. In view of the factual matrix of the case, learned counsel for the
petitioner has limited his prayer only to the extent of setting
setting-aside
aside of the
order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kurukshetra whereby the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person.
Kurukshetra,
While assailing the said order, learned counsel has argued that the order
declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender is not sustainable and is
liable to be set-aside.
set It has been further argued that no effective step was
taken in the case to serve the petitioner with warrants before issuance of
proclamation against him. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order
has been passed based on fabricated and false report
reports. It is submitted by the
learned counsel that the petitioner was neither personally served with any
notice nor was any process ever properly executed or communicated to him.
Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order has been passed without
properly scrutinizing or verifying the authenticity of the report submitted by
the process server. Consequently, the order declaring the petitioner as a
proclaimed offender is unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be
set-aside.
aside.
3. Learned State counsel
sel has opposed the claim of the petitioner
seeking quashing of the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender
in the case. While refuting the case of the petitioner, detailed arguments
concerning the merits of the case were made and it is argu
argued
ed that the offence
alleged against the petitioner is serious as he is indulged in illegal activity.
activity
According to learned State counsel, the Police has conducted fair and proper
2 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 23:54:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005451
CRM-M–11664-2024 3
investigation and after completion of the same, final report under Section
173 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was presented by the Police
Police.. Charges were framed on
30.04.2016 and the prosecution evidence is ongoing.
going. Moreover, it has been
stated that the learned Court below followed the procedure as laid
laid-down
down
under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973
1973 in letter and spirit and no discrepancy
whatsoever is forthcoming from the records of the case.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and
carefully perused the record of the case.
5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 12.06.2023 (Annexure
P-6), passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, show that on the basis
of the report forwarded by the serving official, it was observed that the
proclamation issued against the present petitioner has already been effected
on 08.05.2023 and
and consequent to the petitioner’s non
non-appearance
appearance on the
concerned date recorded a satisfaction to the effect that the petitioner is
absconding. Accordingly, the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender.
6. I find the course adopted by the Judicial Mag
Magistrate,
istrate, as
antithesis to the provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. The learned Judicial Magistrate has committed illegality by issuing
the said proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973, without complying
complying the mandatory requirements of law. Hence, the
same is not sustainable in law and continuation of the same will amount to
abuse of process of law. Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
reads as under:
“82.
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 concealing3 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 23:54:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005451CRM-M–11664-2024 4
himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a
written proclamation
roclamation 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 conspi
conspicuous
cuous 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.
(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
sub-section
section (2), shall be conclusive
evidence that the requirements of this Sect
Section
ion have been complied with,
and that the proclamation was published on such day.
[(4) Where a proclamation published under sub
sub-section
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, pronoun
pronounce
ce him a
proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect.
(5) The provisions of sub-sections
sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration
made by the Court under sub-section
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
‘Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal)
319’, held as under:
“9.
9. The essential requirements of section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for
issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder and4 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 23:54:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005451CRM-M–11664-2024 5
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 th
that
at 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
as 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
d 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
ed 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.
house. The three sub
sub-clauses (a)- (c) in
5 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 23:54:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005451
CRM-M–11664-2024 6
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 tthe
he 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 ord
ordinarily
inarily 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 iss 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 v.
State: 1958 CriLJ 965).
(viii) The Court issuing the proclamation
oclamation 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 evide
evidence
nce 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
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)
318).”
8. It is pertinent to mention that by now it is a settled principle of
law that the Court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 of
Cr.P.C., must record its satisfaction that the accus
accused
ed in respect of whom the
proclamation is being made, is absconding or concealing himself to evade
his arrest. The predominant requirement for invocation of provisions of
Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is clearly lacking in the
6 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 23:54:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005451
CRM-M–11664-2024 7
present case. Perusal of order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate shows that no satisfaction has been recorded while issuing the
proclamation that the accused-petitioner
accused petitioner has absconded or is concealing
himself so that warrants of arrest against him canno
cannott be executed. There was
no material present before the Judicial Magistrate to record such a
satisfaction. Rather, the case put forth by the petitioner before this Court,
that he was never served with any warrants before issua
issuance
nce of proclamation
against him
im stands fortified upon perusal of order dated 06.04.2023.
9. Strangely the impugned order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender has
relied upon the statement of the serving official to hold that the proclamation
issued against the petitioner has been effected. A perusal of the order dated
08.05.2023 shows that the serving official appeared before the Court and
made a statement that on 15.04.2023, he visited the house of the petitioner to
serve the arrest warrant issued against the petitioner at his given address in
the case but he was not found there. He had pasted one copy of
proclamation outside the house of the accused and one copy on the notice
board of the Court.
Court But the Judicial Magistrate
gistrate while passing the impugned
order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender in the case has been
totally oblivious of said service report of warrants by the police. As was
enunciated in para 9 (vi) of the judgment in the case of Sonu (supra),,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
then the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part
7 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 23:54:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005451
CRM-M–11664-2024 8
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 par
part of the Court-house.
house.
10. 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 com
complied
plied with based on
relevant material available on record of the case in that regard. Non
Non-
adherence to said requirement while declaring the accused as proclaimed
offender vitiates the proclamation proceedings initiated against the accused.
10.1. Furthermore, vide order dated 13.03.2024 the petitioner has
already entered appearance and has been enlarged on bail by the Court
below whereinafter the trial is proceeding. Thus, no useful purpose would be
served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending agains
againstt the petitioner.
Thus,
hus, it would be an appropriate case for exercise of powers under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. and to bring to an end the criminal proceedings initiated in
the light of the order dated 12.06.2023 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 partly allowed and
the order dated 12.06.2023 (Annexure P
P-6) passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kurukshetra in case No.CHI/305/2016 in FIR No.55 of 2016
dated 04.02.2016 registered at Police Station Thanesar Sadar, District
8 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 23:54:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005451
CRM-M–11664-2024 9
Kurukshetra, declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender and the
Kurukshetra,
consequent criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner is quashed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
January 15,
15 2025
Ajay
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 23:54:21 :::