Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arshad Alias Dholu vs State Of Haryana on 9 July, 2026
1
CRM-
CRM-M-4867-
4867-2023
151
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-4867-
4867-2023
Arshad @ Dholu
.Petitioner
....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
Date of Decision: July 09,
09, 2026
Date of Uploading: July 10,
10, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Priyanka Sadar Thakur, Senior DAG Haryana.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J. (Oral)
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.
seeking quashing/ setting aside of the impugned order dated 07.12.2022
(Annexure P-7)
7) passed by learned ACJM,
ACJM, Palwal and all subsequent proceedings
in pursuant thereto, vide which, petitioner was declared as proclaimed person, in
case FIR No.0183
0183 dated 29.05.2022, registered under Sections 279, 307, 336, 34
of IPC, 1860,, Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 3, 13(1), 13(2), 13(3) of
the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015
2015, Section 11 of
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 ((Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of
IPC, Sections 8, 13, 17 of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan
Act, 2015 and Sections 59 and 60 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,
1960 were added later on),
on , at Police Station Sadar Palwal, Tehsil and District
Palwal.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.07.10 12:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
2
CRM-
CRM-M-4867-
4867-2023
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, in fact, the petitioner was not named in the FIR in question and has
been nominated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, namely,
Mubin alias Mubbi. Learned counsel has further submitted that vide order dated
15.07.2022, learned Court below had issued production warrants of the petitioner
and other co-accused for 20.08.2022. On 20.08.2022, since production warrants of
the petitioner and other co-accused remained unexecuted, therefore, fresh warrants
of arrest were issued for 17.09.2022. Learned counsel has asserted that on
17.09.2022, again warrants of arrest remained unexecuted, therefore, fresh
warrants of arrest were issued against accused persons for 15.10.2022. Learned
counsel has submitted that on 15.10.2022, warrants of arrest of accused persons
received back unexecuted, therefore, proclamation against the petitioner and other
co-accused was issued for 07.12.2022 and Tamili was directed to appear before the
Court below on 01.11.2022 for making statement in respect of due publication of
aforesaid proclamation. Learned counsel has submitted that on 01.11.2022,
statement of the executing constable was recorded as Ex.PA to Ex.PD and the
matter was adjourned to 07.12.2022 awaiting appearance of the accused persons.
Learned counsel has submitted that ultimately, vide impugned order dated
07.12.2022, the petitioner and other co-accused were declared as proclaimed
persons.
2.1. Learned counsel has urged that perusal of the statement of executing
constable reveals that the proclamation was not read in some conspicuous place
where the petitioner was residing. Learned counsel has further submitted that it is
specifically provided in Section 82 sub section 2 clause (ii) of Cr. P.C. that the
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.07.10 12:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
3
CRM-
CRM-M-4867-
4867-2023
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,
whereas, no such publication was ordered to be effected by the Court below, which
is in clear violation of procedure prescribed under law. Learned counsel has further
submitted that even the petitioner was declared proclaimed person in completely
illegal, whimsical, unlawful, improper and unreasonable way by effecting
proclamation at the back of the petitioner without proper effecting notice or
summon requiring the petitioner to appear and join proceedings in the FIR in
question. Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order declaring the
petitioner as proclaimed person 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
his arrest.
2.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
petitioner had earlier approached the Court below for grant of pre-arrest bail into
the FIR in question, however, the same came to be dismissed vide order dated
05.12.2022 (Annexure P-10). Learned counsel has further submitted that soon
thereafter, vide impugned order dated 07.12.2022, the petitioner has been declared
as proclaimed person, which is in clear violation of procedure enshrined in Section
82 of the Cr. P.C. and, thus, the said impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of
law. On the basis of these submissions, grant of petition in hand is entreated for.
3. Learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the
status report by way of an affidavit dated 28.03.2023 (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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.07.10 12:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
4
CRM-
CRM-M-4867-
4867-2023
against the petitioner is serious in nature. Furthermore, it has been submitted that
the petitioner failed to cause appearance before the Court below. It has been
further submitted that warrants of arrest issued against the petitioner remained
unexecuted, therefore, learned Court below was constrained to issue proclamation
against the petitioner. Learned State counsel has further asserted that the statement
of the serving official was recorded and thereafter, the petitioner was declared as
proclaimed person, vide the impugned order. It has been submitted that 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.
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.
Perusal of the record shows that warrants of arrest issued against the
petitioner remained unexecuted. Thereafter, vide order dated 15.10.2022, learned
Court below issued proclamation for 07.12.2022 and Tamili was directed to appear
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.07.10 12:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
5
CRM-
CRM-M-4867-
4867-2023
before the Court below on 01.11.2022. It has been pleaded that on 01.11.2022,
statement of the executing constable was recorded as Ex.PA to Ex.PD and the
matter was adjourned to 07.12.2022 awaiting appearance of the accused persons.
Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 07.12.2022, the petitioner and other co-
accused were declared as proclaimed persons. Perusal of statement of the
executing constable reveals that the proclamation in question was not read in some
conspicuous place where the petitioner was residing, in accordance with the
procedure under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. It has been pleaded by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that even no effort was made by the Court below to
direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating
in the place in which petitioner ordinarily resides, which is also a procedure
enshrined under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. The law is well-settled that once
warrants of arrest remained unexecuted and there is no satisfaction recorded by the
learned trial Court with regard to absconding and concealment, the issuance of
proclamation, straightway in itself is bad in law. Failure to adhere to the provisions
of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. before declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person
vitiates the subsequent order declaring the accused as a proclaimed person.
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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.07.10 12:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
6
CRM-
CRM-M-4867-
4867-2023
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 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
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, previouslyMAHAVIR SINGH
2026.07.10 12:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
7
CRM-
CRM-M-4867-
4867-2023
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
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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.07.10 12:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
8
CRM-
CRM-M-4867-
4867-2023
case. A perusal of the impugned order dated 07.12.2022 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 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/ 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
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 07.12.2022 passed by the learned ACJM,
Palwal, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person, along with
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.07.10 12:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
9
CRM-
CRM-M-4867-
4867-2023
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
person, and shall not be construed as observations on the merits of the case.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUMEET GOEL)
GOEL)
JUDGE
July 09,
09, 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.07.10 12:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
