Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 23 February, 2026
1
CRM-
CRM-M-58579-
58579-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-58579-
58579-2025
Harwinder Singh
....Petitioner
.Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
Date of reserve: February 19,
19, 2026
Date of Pronouncement/ Decision: February 23, 2026
Date of Uploading: February 23,
23, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Mr. Hitesh Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. (Through V.C)
Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J.
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’)
‘BNSS’), seeking setting aside of the
impugned order dated 11.04.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Amritsar,
Amritsar whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed
person, in case FIR No.43 dated 28.09.2014, registered under Section 420 of
IPC, at Police Station Airport, District Amritsar
Amritsar.
2. Learned counsel
ounsel for the petitioner has contended that the
impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person,,
is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned
counsel has argued that vide orders dated 22.09.2016, 20.10.2016 and
29.11.2016,, bailable warrants were issued but the same remained unexecuted,
and bail order of the petitioner was cancelled and bail/ surety bonds were
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 03:16:35 :::
2
CRM-
CRM-M-58579-
58579-2025
forfeited to the State. Learned counsel has further argued that thereafter, the
warrants issued received back with the report that the petitioner had gone
abroad. Learned counsel has further argued that, vide orders dated 08.12.2016,
12.01.2017, 31.01.2017, proclamation was issued against the petitioner, but the
same was not received back. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.02.2017, the
proclamation was again issued for 16.03.2017. Learned counsel has argued that
the proclamation was allegedly effected on 05.03.2017, i.e., before the actual
date of proclamation, which is totally illegal, perfunctory and against procedure
as per law. Learned counsel has iterated that since 30 days time was to be
given, whereas, only 11 days were given to appear when the proclamation was
effected on 05.03.2017, thus, to complete the process of 30 days, learned Court
below, vide order dated 16.03.2017, had adjourned the matter for 11.04.2017.
Learned counsel has iterated that, therefore, without issuing fresh proclamation
for 11.04.2017, finally, vide impugned order dated 11.04.2017, the petitioner
has wrongly been declared as proclaimed person, which is contrary to the
provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C.
2.1. Learned counsel has argued that, thus, the order declaring the
petitioner a proclaimed offender is in gross violation of law and principles of
natural justice as there was no deliberate evasion or non-appearance on the part
of the petitioner. On the basis of these submissions, learned counsel has prayed
that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside being illegal and unjustified
and hence liable to be set-aside.
3. Learned State counsel has filed short reply by way of an affidavit
dated 06.02.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record. Raising
submissions in tandem with the said short reply, learned State counsel has
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 03:16:36 :::
3
CRM-
CRM-M-58579-
58579-2025
opposed the present petition. While refuting the case set up by the petitioner,
detailed arguments were advanced on merits, contending that the offence
alleged against the petitioner is serious in nature. Furthermore, it has been
submitted by the learned State counsel that the petitioner absented from the
proceedings of the trial without any intimation and thereafter, he could not be
arrested and produced before the Court below despite issuance of repeated
bailable and non-bailable warrants of arrest resulting in cancellation of his bail
order and forfeiture of bail/ surety bonds to the State. Consequently, vide
impugned order, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person.
Learned Court below has followed the procedure as laid-down under Section
82 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 in letter and spirit and no discrepancy whatsoever is
forthcoming from the records of the case. 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 strictly and meticulously adhered
to. It is trite that the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature,
and any non-compliance thereof vitiates the entire proceedings. Furthermore,
Section 82(1) of the Cr. P.C. clearly provides that before issuing a proclamation
requiring a person to appear, the Court must have reason to believe that such
person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant cannot be
executed. Further, the proclamation must specify a date not less than 30 days
from the date of publication for the accused to appear before the Court. In the
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 03:16:36 :::
4
CRM-
CRM-M-58579-
58579-2025
present case, the record reflects that the warrants remained unexecuted and
there is no finding that the petitioner was evading service. In the present case,
as per statement of serving official, it is borne out that pursuant to the order
dated 16.02.2017 passed by the Court below, the proclamation was effected on
05.03.2017. Further, a perusal of the zimni order dated 16.03.2017, reveals that
since the proclamation was duly executed, therefore, the matter was adjourned
for 11.04.2017 for awaiting appearance on behalf of the petitioner. However, no
fresh proclamation was issued on 11.04.2017. The law is well settled that when
a matter is adjourned after issuance of proclamation, the Court is required to
issue a fresh proclamation intimating the adjourned date. Failure to do so
vitiates the subsequent order declaring the accused as a proclaimed offender.
The impugned order also reflects non-compliance with the statutory
requirement of waiting for a minimum of 30 days after publication of
proclamation before declaring an accused a proclaimed offender. In the
considered opinion of this Court, clear notice period of not less than 30 days
from the date of its publication must be provided in the proclamation itself. The
same legal principle squarely applies in the present case.
6. This Court finds that the course adopted by the Court below is in
clear contravention of, and antithetical to, the provisions of Section 82 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court below has committed a manifest
illegality by issuing and acting upon the proclamation without ensuring
compliance with the mandatory statutory requirements. The learned Court
below, while declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person, failed to record
the requisite judicial satisfaction regarding due execution of the proclamation
and proceeded in a mechanical and perfunctory manner, rendering the
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 03:16:36 :::
5
CRM-
CRM-M-58579-
58579-2025
impugned order legally unsustainable. 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′
“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
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 03:16:36 :::
6
CRM-
CRM-M-58579-
58579-2025
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.
(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
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 03:16:36 :::
7
CRM-
CRM-M-58579-
58579-2025
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 by now a settled principle of law that prior to issuing a
proclamation under Section 82 Cr. P.C., the Court is required to record its
satisfaction that the accused, against whom such proclamation is sought, is
absconding or is concealing himself with the intention to evade arrest. This
foundational and jurisdictional requirement is conspicuously absent in the
present case. A perusal of the impugned order dated 11.04.2017 reveals that no
such satisfaction has been recorded by the Court below, nor does the record
disclose any material which could justify an inference that the petitioner had
absconded or was deliberately avoiding his appearance before the Court.
Furthermore, the issuance of bailable warrants and proclamation without
establishing proper service of earlier process(s) shows non-compliance with the
due process of law, resulting in serious prejudice to the petitioner.
9. The provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
having serious civil and criminal ramifications qua the rights of an accused,
particularly affecting his liberty and participation in trial proceedings, cannot be
invoked in a casual or cavalier manner. The mandatory requirement of
recording satisfaction that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself
so that the warrant of arrest cannot be executed, as embodied under Section 82
Cr.P.C., must be scrupulously complied with on the basis of cogent and relevant
material available on record. Any non-adherence to this statutory mandate
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 03:16:36 :::
8
CRM-
CRM-M-58579-
58579-2025
while declaring an accused as a proclaimed offender/person vitiates the
proclamation proceedings in their entirety.
10. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is of the considered opinion
that no useful purpose would be served by permitting the criminal proceedings
to continue against the petitioner, which are founded upon an illegal and
procedurally flawed proclamation. It is, therefore, a fit and appropriate case for
the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS / Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C., so as to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends
of justice.
11. In view of the above findings, and considering the entirety of the
facts and circumstances of the present case, the present petition is allowed.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 11.04.2017 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, whereby, the petitioner has been
declared as proclaimed person, in case FIR No.43 dated 28.09.2014, registered
under Section 420 of IPC, at Police Station Airport, District Amritsar, as well as
all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUMEET GOEL)
GOEL)
JUDGE
February 23,
23, 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 03:16:36 :::
