Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhvinder Singh vs State Of Haryana on 23 April, 2026
1
CRM-
CRM-M-26504-
26504-2025
152
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-26504-
26504-2025
Sukhvinder Singh
.Petitioner
....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
Date of Decision: April 23,
23, 2026
Date of Uploading: April 23
23, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Mr. Sahil Shehrawat,, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J.
Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023
seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 10.12.1983 (Annexure P-6)) passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra
Kurukshetra,, whereby, the petitioner has
been declared as proclaimed offender.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
er has contended that the impugned
order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender,, is wholly
illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has
submitted that earlier the petitioner was released on bail in the year 1981. Learned
counsel has submitted that in May 1981, the petitioner travelled to Canada to earn
better living. Learned counsel has submitted that as per Immigration Certificate
dated 02.02.1987 (Annexure P-2),, the date of original entry of the petitioner was
counsel, while pointing out to the zimni orders appended
09.05.1981. Learned counsel,
with the petition, has submitted that only summons and non
non-bailable
bailable warrants
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.04.23 18:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
2
CRM-
CRM-M-26504-
26504-2025
were issued, and there was complete non-compliance of mandatory procedure as
enshrined under Section 82 Cr. P.C. and no 30 days’ period was afforded to the
petitioner to cause appearance before the Court below. Learned counsel has argued
that, vide order dated 25.11.1983, non-bailable warrants of the petitioner and other
co-accused were issued and the matter was adjourned to 10.12.1983. Learned
counsel has further submitted that perusal of report dated 06.12.1983 (Annexure
P-5) of the serving official shows that the petitioner refused to accept summons,
whereas, as per Immigration Certificate (Annexure P-2), the petitioner could have
travelled to India only in 1987 for the first time after leaving India in 1981.
Learned counsel has further submitted that still the petitioner was declared as
proclaimed person, vide impugned order dated 10.12.1983 passed by the Court
below.
2.1. Learned counsel has submitted that vide judgment dated 23.11.1981
passed by the Court below, co-accused of the petitioner have been acquitted since
prosecution had failed to prove allegations and eye-witnesses had turned hostile.
2.2. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been granted
Canadian Citizenship on 21.11.1990, and the petitioner came to know about the
proceedings against him from village Sarpanch, when he visited India again in
February 2024.
2.3. 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
counsel has prayed that the impugned order being illegal and unjustified, is liable
to be set-aside.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.04.23 18:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
3
CRM-
CRM-M-26504-
26504-2025
2.2. Learned counsel has submitted that pursuant to the order dated
17.03.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner has caused appearance before the
Court below and furnished bail bonds, and the petitioner has been admitted on
interim bail, vide order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the Court below.
3. Learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the
status report by way of an affidavit dated 28.06.2025, 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 issuance of non-bailable
warrants, the petitioner failed to cause appearance before the Court below. Learned
State counsel has argued that ultimately, vide impugned order dated 10.12.1983,
the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender 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 17.03.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner caused appearance
before the Court below and vide order dated 25.03.2026, the petitioner has
furnished bail bonds and has been released on interim bail by the Court below.
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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.04.23 18:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
4
CRM-
CRM-M-26504-
26504-2025
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 only notices and warrants were issued against the petitioner and
mandatory provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. were not followed in its true
spirit. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had gone abroad in May 1981 and had
returned India, first time, only in 1987. Still, vide impugned order, the petitioner
has been declared as a Proclaimed Offender without following mandatory
procedure as enunciated under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C.
5.1. Co-accused of the petitioner have been stated to be acquitted of the
charge against them, vide judgment dated 23.11.1987.
5.2. It is worthwhile to mention here that, in pursuance of the order dated
17.03.2026 by this Court in the present petition, the petitioner has duly caused
appearance before the Court below, and vide order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the
Court below, the petitioner has furnished the bail bonds and has been released on
interim bail by the said Court, thereby evidencing his bona fide conduct and
absence of any intention to evade the process of law.
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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.04.23 18:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
5
CRM-
CRM-M-26504-
26504-2025
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).]”
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′,
319′ held asunder:
“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 firstMAHAVIR SINGH
2026.04.23 18:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
6
CRM-
CRM-M-26504-
26504-2025
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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.04.23 18:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
7
CRM-
CRM-M-26504-
26504-2025
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 10.12.1983 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.
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 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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.04.23 18:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
8
CRM-
CRM-M-26504-
26504-2025
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 10.12.1983 passed by the learned Chief
Magistrate, Kurukshetra, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed
offender, as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby
quashed qua the petitioner.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUMEET GOEL)
GOEL)
JUDGE
April 23,
23, 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.04.23 18:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
