Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amanjot Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Another on 19 May, 2026
1
CRM-
CRM-M-19660-
19660-2026
144
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-19660-
19660-2026
Amanjot Kaur
....Petitioner
.Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and another
....Respondentss
Date of Decision: May 19,
19, 2026
Date of Uploading: May 20,
20, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Mr. Charanjit Singh Bakhshi, Advocate,
Ms. Mallika Passi, Advocate,
Mr. Gurjeet Singh Saini, Advocate
Advocate,
Ms. Simran Kang, Advocate and
Mr. Aryan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.
Mr. Jasraj Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J. (Oral)
Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023
seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the learned
JMIC,, Hoshiarpur,
Hoshiarpur, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed
offender, in case FIR No.191 dated 19.11.2021
19.11.2021, registered under Sections 306,
506, 406 and 420 of IPC (added lateron),, at Police Station Hariana, District
Hoshiarpur, and all consequential proceedings qua the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.20 09:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
2
CRM-
CRM-M-19660-
19660-2026
submitted that the petitioner had left India for Canada on 24.08.2019 for the
purpose of pursuing her studies and has been continuously residing there since.
Learned counsel has submitted that FIR in question came to be registered only on
19.11.2021, i.e., more than 2 years after the petitioner had already departed for
Canada. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner’s name is ‘Amanjot
Kaur’, whereas, the proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. were initiated
against one ‘Amandeep Kaur’. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has
never been known/ identified y the name ‘Amandeep Kaur’ and therefore, the very
initiation of proclamation proceedings suffers from a fundamental factual
infirmity. Learned counsel has also submitted that despite the fact that the FIR
itself records that the petitioner was residing in Canada, proceedings under Section
82 Cr. P.C. were initiated on the address at Hoshiarpur. Learned counsel has
further submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge whatsoever of the FIR or
subsequent court proceedings and she became aware for the first time only upon
receipt of a Procedural Fairness Letter dated 06.11.2025 issued by Immigration,
Refugees and Citizenship Canada, in connection with the application of the
petitioner for renewal of her work permit. Learned counsel has iterated that the
family of the petitioner had also not made her aware about the proceedings in
question just to avoid causing undue stress in view of the fact that the petitioner
was residing alone in a foreign country and had the responsibility of supporting
the financial needs of the entire family after the demise of her father on
20.10.2019. Learned counsel has further iterated that she was never served with
any non-bailable warrants or proclamation in Canada and the same were allegedly
effected only at her local address in India and that too in the name of ‘Amandeep
Kaur’ whereas the petitioner’s name is ‘Amanjot Kaur’, thereby rendering the
whole process ineffective.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.20 09:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
3
CRM-
CRM-M-19660-
19660-2026
2.1. Learned counsel has also argued that proclamation was issued on
07.05.2022 for 15.06.2022. Vide order dated 15.06.2022, since stipulated period of
30 days had not elapsed, the matter was adjourned to 16.08.2022 for awaiting
appearance of the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that no fresh
proclamation was issued, which is in clear violation of provisions of Section 82 of
the Cr. P.C. Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order declaring the
petitioner as proclaimed offender has been passed mechanically without proper
compliance of mandatory provisions as enshrined under Section 82 Cr. P.C.
Learned counsel has stated that no such satisfaction was recorded by the Court
below to the effect that the petitioner had absconded or was deliberately avoiding
her arrest. Learned counsel has submitted that despite the factum of petitioner
living abroad, the trial Court did not attempt to serve the petitioner at her overseas
address or to inform her of the aforementioned proceedings against her; thus, the
petitioner cannot be said to have deliberately evaded the process of law. 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.
3. Learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the
short reply by way of an affidavit dated 21.04.2026 (which is already 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 that
the petitioner failed to cause appearance before the Court below, and consequently,
learned Court below issued proclamation against the petitioner. Learned State
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.20 09:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
4
CRM-
CRM-M-19660-
19660-2026
counsel has argued that ultimately, vide impugned order dated 16.08.2022, 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.
3.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, while raising submissions in
tandem with submissions made by learned State counsel, has opposed the grant of
petition in hand by arguing that there are serious allegations against the petitioner.
It has been contended that the petitioner had not willfully caused appearance
before the trial Court despite having full knowledge regarding the FIR/
proceedings in question. Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order
has been passed after following due procedure under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. and
rightly declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender and, thus, the same requires
non-interference by this Court. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of
the petition in hand is entreated 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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.20 09:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
5
CRM-
CRM-M-19660-
19660-2026
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 present case, it has been pleaded that the petitioner had
already gone abroad when the non-bailable warrants and the subsequent
proclamation proceedings were initiated. It has been further pleaded that the
proceedings under Section 82 Cr. P.C. were initiated only at her local address, and
no steps were taken by the trial Court to effect service upon the petitioner at her
overseas address.
From a perusal of the record, it transpires that the proclamation was
issued on 07.05.2022 for 15.06.2022. Vide order dated 15.06.2022, it was
observed by the trial Court that the stipulated period of 30 days had not elapsed
and, accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 16.08.2022 for awaiting the
appearance of the petitioner. 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 person. The impugned
order dated 16.08.2022 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 person. 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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.20 09:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
6
CRM-
CRM-M-19660-
19660-2026
mandatory statutory requirements. The learned Court below, while declaring the
petitioner as a proclaimed offender, 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. Further, Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
reads as under:
“82. Proclamation for person abscon
absconding.
ding. – (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
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:-
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.20 09:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
7
CRM-
CRM-M-19660-
19660-2026
(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 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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.20 09:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
8
CRM-
CRM-M-19660-
19660-2026
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 16.08.2022 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
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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.20 09:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
9
CRM-
CRM-M-19660-
19660-2026
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 16.08.2022 passed by the learned JMIC,
Hoshiarpur, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender, as
well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua
the petitioner.
There is no gainsaying that observations made in the instant order
are limited to the issue in lis, namely, the petitioner being declared as Proclaimed
Offender, and shall not be construed as observations on the merits of the case.
11.1. The petitioner is directed to apply for bail, whether anticipatory or
regular as deem appropriate by him, within a period of 06 weeks from today,
failing which the present petition would be deemed to be dismissed without any
further reference to the Bench.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUMEET GOEL)
GOEL)
JUDGE
May 19,
19, 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.20 09:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
