Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shanti Devi vs State Of Punjab on 21 April, 2026
1
CRM-
CRM-M-39563-
39563-2025
150
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-39563-
39563-2025
Shanti Devi
....Petitioner
.Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
Date of Decision: April 21,
21, 2026
Date of Uploading: April 22,
22, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Mr. Sourabh Bedi,, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J.
Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023
seeking quashing/
quashing setting aside of the impugned order dated 21.10.2023
(Annexure P–4)) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana,,
whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person
person,, on the grounds of
non-service
service of summons to the petitioner at her proper address.
2. Learned counsel 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
submitted that the primary contentions at hand is, since the address of the
petitioner, in the complaint in question, is stated to have been an old address,
therefore, the notice, bailable/ non-bailable
bailable warrants remained unexecuted/
unserved. Further, to provide a clear picture of the factual background, the learned
counsel has stated that vide order dated 24.09.2021, the petitioner was admitted on
bail by the Court below. Learned counsel sub
submitted
mitted that the petitioner was
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.04.22 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
2
CRM-
CRM-M-39563-
39563-2025
regularly appearing before the Court below, but due to one Payal Sharma, who
impersonated herself as an advocate before the Court below, induced the petitioner
in respect of filing exemption applications and arranging surety. Learned counsel
has submitted that Payal Sharma introduced one Balraj Singh to stand as a surety
in the Court proceedings. Due to good faith in Payal Sharma, the petitioner did not
attend the Court proceedings, and, said surety – Balraj Singh appeared before the
Court below and denied having stood as surety for securing presence of the
petitioner. Learned counsel has argued that vide order dated 30.04.2022, bail order
of the petitioner was cancelled and bail/ surety bonds were forfeited to the State,
and non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner. The petitioner was
therefore, under impression that her personal presence has been exempted as per
the application filed by Payal Sharma. Moreover, the summons were being served
at old address, which did not come to the knowledge of the petitioner; the non-
appearance was neither intentional nor deceitful. Learned counsel has further
submitted that proclamation proceedings were initiated and vide order dated
05.08.2023, proclamation was issued against the petitioner for 21.10.2023.
Learned counsel has argued that, vide order dated 02.09.2023, it has been stated
that statement of the serving official was recorded and the matter was adjourned
awaiting presence of accused till 21.10.2023. Learned counsel has argued that, still
the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person, vide impugned order dated
21.10.2023 passed by the Court below.
2.1. Learned counsel has further argued that the proclamation was not
done in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C., 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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.04.22 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
3
CRM-
CRM-M-39563-
39563-2025
counsel has prayed that the impugned order being illegal and unjustified, is liable
to be set-aside.
2.2. Learned counsel has submitted that pursuant to the order dated
25.02.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner has caused appearance before the
Court below and furnished personal bail bonds, and the same were accepted, vide
order dated 23.03.2026.
3. Learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the
short reply by way of an affidavit dated 25.02.2026, which is already placed on
record, has 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 despite repeated opportunities, the
petitioner failed to cause appearance before the Court below, and consequently,
learned Court below issued proclamation against the petitioner. Learned State
counsel has argued that ultimately, vide impugned order dated 21.10.2023, the
petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person after following 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.
Learned State counsel has, however, submitted that pursuant to the
order dated 25.02.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner caused appearance
before the Court below and vide order dated 23.03.2026, the petitioner has
furnished personal bail bonds to the satisfaction of the said Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully
perused the record of the case.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.04.22 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
4
CRM-
CRM-M-39563-
39563-2025
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, based on material on record, that such
person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant cannot be
executed.
In the present case, it has been pleaded by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that earlier notices, bailable/ non-bailable warrants were issued on the
old address of the petitioner. It has been further pleaded that the petitioner was
defrauded by one Payal Sharma, who impersonated herself as an advocate, and
upon her assurance, the petitioner could not appear before the Court below, and
her bail order was also cancelled. It has been further pleaded that after issuance of
proclamation against the petitioner, statement of the serving official was recorded.
Perusal of the said statement reveals that, in terms of the provisions of Section 82
Cr. P.C., the proclamation was not read publicly at a conspicuous place of the town
or village in which the petitioner ordinarily resides, nor is there any material to
demonstrate compliance with the prescribed modes of publication.
5.1. It is worthwhile to mention here that, in pursuanceof the order dated
25.02.2026 by this Court in the present petition, the petitioner has duly caused
appearance before the Court below, and vide order dated 23.03.2026 passed by the
Court below, the petitioner has furnished the personal bail bonds to the satisfaction
of the Court, thereby evidencing her bona fide conduct and absence of any
intention to evade the process of law.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.04.22 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
5
CRM-
CRM-M-39563-
39563-2025
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 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).]”
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.04.22 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
6
CRM-
CRM-M-39563-
39563-2025
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
319′, held as
in the case of ‘Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319′under:
“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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.04.22 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
7
CRM-
CRM-M-39563-
39563-2025
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
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/ herself 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 21.10.2023 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 her appearance before the Court. Furthermore, the
effecting of proclamation was not done as per provisions of Section 82 of the Cr.
P.C., 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/ herself so that
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.04.22 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
8
CRM-
CRM-M-39563-
39563-2025
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 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.
allowed
Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.10.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, whereby, the petitioner has been
declared as proclaimed person, as well as all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, are hereby quashed.
quashed
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUMEET GOEL)
GOEL)
JUDGE
April 21,
21, 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.04.22 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment