Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhchain Kaur vs Pala Ram on 5 March, 2026
1
CRM-
CRM-M-64140-
64140-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-64140-
64140-2025
Sukhchain Kaur
....Petitioner
.Petitioner
versus
Pala Ram
....Respondent
Date of reserve: February 24,
24, 2026
Date of Pronouncement/ Decision: March 05, 2026
Date of Uploading: March 05, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Mr. Janak Singh Bhinder,, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Parveen Kumar Garg, Advocate for the respondent.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J.
Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’)
‘BNSS’), seeking setting aside of the
impugned order dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P
P-11) passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam, District Sangrur
Sangrur, whereby, the petitioner
has been declared as proclaimed person, in case NACT No.102 of 2024 titled as
“Pala Ram versus Sukhchain Kaur”.
Kaur”
2. Learned counsel
ounsel for the petitioner has contended that theimpugned 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 notice, bailable and non
non-bailable
able warrants were issuedagainst the petitioner on different occasions,, but the petitioner could not appear
before the Court below, since the counsel the petitioner had engaged to
1 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:48:45 :::
2
CRM-
CRM-M-64140-
64140-2025represent on her behalf, had informed the petitioner that her personal
appearance would not be required in such cases unless specifically directed by
the Court. Learned counsel has further argued that on 19.07.2025, proclamation
proceedings were initiated against the petitioner due to her non-appearance
before the trial Court, but the same was neither intentional nor deliberate.
Learned counsel has iterated that on 25.08.2025, statement of serving official
was recorded, and matter was adjourned to 30.09.2025 for awaiting presence of
the petitioner, and vide impugned order dated 30.09.2025, learned Court below
had wrongly declared the petitioner as proclaimed person.
2.1. Learned counsel has further argued that husband of the petitioner
had suffered a paralytic attack in the year 2024 and was undergoing treatment
in a hospital at Fatehgarh Sahib, hence, she started residing with her husband at
Fatehgarh Sahib, and it is only on 10.11.2025, when she visited her house at
Patiala, therefore, she came to know through her neighbours that some Court
documents have been affixed on the wall of her house. The petitioner
immediately contacted her counsel, in this regard, and came to know regarding
the whole process and the petitioner having been declared as proclaimed
person, vide order dated 30.09.2025, by the Court below.
2.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that pursuant to
the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner caused
appearance before the Court below on 13.02.2026, whereupon, the petitioner
was ordered to be released on bail on personal bonds. Learned counsel has
further submitted that the petitioner has also deposited the costs of Rs.10,000/-
being the condition precedent to grant interim bail to the petitioner by the Court
below.
2 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:48:45 :::
3
CRM-
CRM-M-64140-
64140-2025
2.3. Learned counsel has argued that, thus, the order declaring the
petitioner a proclaimed person 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. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed
the present petition. While refuting the case set up by the petitioner, detailed
arguments were advanced on merits, contending that the allegations levelled
against the petitioner are serious in nature. Furthermore, it has been submitted
that the petitioner has not willfully caused appearance before the Court below
despite issuance of notice, bailable/ non-bailable warrants, and thereafter,
issuance of proclamation against her. Learned counsel has argued that
declaration of the petitioner as proclaimed person, vide impugned order, is in
accordance with the law and after following due procedure under Section 82 of
the Cr. P.C. Learned counsel has argued that the 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,
3 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:48:45 :::
4
CRM-
CRM-M-64140-
64140-2025
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 so that the warrant cannot be executed.
In the present case, perusal of the zimni orders dated 04.09.2024, 28.10.2024,
14.01.2025, 06.03.2025, 14.05.2025 and 19.07.2025, appended with the
petition in hand, reveals that bailable/ non-bailable warrants issued against the
petitioner remained unexecuted. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.07.2025,
proclamation was issued against the petitioner requiring her to appear before
the Court below on 25.08.2025. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that no
satisfaction was recorded regarding execution of proclamation against the
petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C.
5.1. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically
pleaded by that owing to health conditions of her husband, the petitioner moved
to Fatehgarh Sahib to reside with him and to take care of him. It is only in
November 2025, when the petitioner visited Patiala, she, through her
neighbours and upon her query to counsel before the Court below, came to
know about Court proceedings. Learned counsel has pleaded that non-
appearance of the petitioner before the Court below was neither intentional nor
deliberate.
5.2. It is worthwhile to mention here that, pursuant to the order dated
22.01.2026 passed by this Court in the present petition, the petitioner duly
appeared before the Court below on 13.02.2026 and has since joined the
proceedings. The said Court has directed the petitioner to be released on bail,
subject to furnishing personal bonds. Further, the petitioner has also deposited
4 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:48:45 :::
5
CRM-
CRM-M-64140-
64140-2025
costs of Rs. 10,000/- as imposed by the Court below as a condition precedent
for the grant of interim bail, thereby demonstrating her bona fides and
willingness to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court.
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 strict
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 and publication of the
proclamation in accordance with law and appears to have proceeded in a
mechanical and perfunctory manner, thereby rendering the impugned order
legally unsustainable. Moreover, the material on record indicates that the
petitioner’s non-appearance was not deliberate but was occasioned by
compelling and unavoidable circumstances, namely the serious ill health of her
husband, which necessitated her relocation to take care for him. The Court
below failed to consider this bona fide explanation and the absence of any
intention on the part of the petitioner to evade the process of law, thereby
vitiating the declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed person. 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: –
5 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:48:45 :::
6
CRM-
CRM-M-64140-
64140-2025
(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
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).
6 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:48:46 :::
7
CRM-
CRM-M-64140-
64140-2025
(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
7 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:48:46 :::
8
CRM-
CRM-M-64140-
64140-2025
absconding or is concealing 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 30.09.2025 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 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
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.
8 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:48:46 :::
9
CRM-
CRM-M-64140-
64140-2025
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 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-11) passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam, District Sangrur, whereby,
the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person, in case NACT No.102 of
2024 titled as “Pala Ram versus Sukhchain Kaur”, 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
March 05, 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 07-03-2026 05:48:46 :::
