Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vivek Yadav vs State Of Haryana on 18 May, 2026
1
CRM-
CRM-M-32844-
32844-2022 (O&M)
140 (1st case)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-32844-
32844-2022
Vivek Yadav
....Petitioner
.Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and another
....Respondentss
Date of Decision:
Decision: May 18,
18, 2026
2026
Date of Uploading: May 19,
19, 2026
2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Mr. Mazlish Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.
Mr. Amardeep Sheoran, Advocate for respondent No.2.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.,
1973, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 30.03.2018 (Annexure P-4))
passed by the learned Chief Judicial (Junior Division)
Division)// Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Rewari,
Rewari whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person and
impugned FIR No.334 dated 03.08.2018, registered under Section 174-A
A of IPC,
at Police Station Model Town, Rewari, District Rewari
Rewari, and all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom.
therefrom
2. Learned counsel
ounsel 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. It has been submitted that
earlier the petitioner was
was released on bail in respect of compliant case under
Section 138 of the NI Act,
Act 1881.. Learned counsel has submitted that non-bailable
bailable
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.19 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
2
CRM-
CRM-M-32844-
32844-2022 (O&M)
warrants issued against the petitioner were received back either served or
unserved. Learned counsel has also argued that vide order dated 02.02.2018,
proclamation was issued against the petitioner for 28.02.2018. It has been argued
that mandatory 30 days period as enshrined under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. was
not granted to the petitioner to cause appearance before the trial Court. Learned
counsel has further submitted that, vide order dated 28.02.2018, it was mentioned
therein that the executing constable had gone to the village of the accused on
24.02.2018 and affixed copy of proclamation at his house, one copy at the main
bus stand and one copy at the notice board of the Court, and since stipulated
period had not expired, therefore, the case was adjourned to 30.03.2018 for
presence of the petitioner. It has been argued that even from the date of alleged
proclamation having been executed on 24.02.2018, still 30 days period would not
complete by 28.02.2018. Learned counsel has further argued that the trial Court,
instead of issuing fresh proclamation had simply adjourned the matter to
30.03.2018, which is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 82 of the
Cr. P.C.
2.1. Learned counsel has submitted that, vide order dated 30.03.2018, the
Court below without considering proper compliance of provisions under Section
82 Cr. P.C., declared the petitioner, as proclaimed person. Learned counsel has also
argued that, even an FIR No.334 dated 03.08.2018 has been registered under
Section 174-A of IPC against the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that,
the impugned order is non-speaking and mechanical order sans any reasons or
application of mind, and the same is not based on facts and circumstances to show
that the case was fit to invoke criminal liability of the petitioner for offence under
Section 174A of IPC.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.19 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
3
CRM-
CRM-M-32844-
32844-2022 (O&M)
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 is liable to be
set-aside being illegal and unjustified and hence liable to be set-aside.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel 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 opportunities, the petitioner did not cause appearance before the trial
Court and, thus, the petitioner evaded his arrest, which compelled the Court below
to declare him proclaimed person and ordering initiation of proceedings under
Section 174A of IPC, vide impugned order. Moreover, it has been stated that the
learned Court below 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.
3.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the
grant of petition in hand by arguing that allegations against the petitioner are
serious in nature. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner, intentionally, did
not cause appearance before the Court below. Learned counsel has further argued
that the proclamation was issued and duly effected upon the petitioner clearly in
terms of provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. and, thus, the impugned order
cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. On the
strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is prayed for.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.19 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
4
CRM-
CRM-M-32844-
32844-2022 (O&M)
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.
In the present case, vide order dated 02.02.2018, proclamation was
issued against the petitioner for 28.02.2018, which shows that mandatory 30 days
period as enshrined in the provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. was not
provided to the petitioner to cause appearance before the trial Court. Further, vide
order dated 28.02.2018, it was noted that the executing official had made
proclamation on 24.02.2018, still 30 days were not provided to the petitioner to
cause appearance from the date of publication of the proclamation, and the matter
was adjourned to 30.03.2018. The law is well settled that when a matter is
adjourned after issuance of proclamation, the Court is required to issue a fresh
proclamation requiring the accused to caused appearance as per provisions of
Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. Failure to do so vitiate the subsequent order declaring
the accused as a proclaimed person. The impugned order dated 30.03.2018 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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.19 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
5
CRM-
CRM-M-32844-
32844-2022 (O&M)
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.
5.1. Keeping in view the entirety of factual milieu of the case in hand,
this Court is of the opinion that the impugned proclamation order and
consequential proceedings under Section 174-A IPC are liable to be quashed as the
same suffer from patent illegality and non-compliance with mandatory statutory
provisions. A perusal of the record shows that although proclamation was issued
on 02.02.2018 for 28.02.2018, the trial Court itself observed on the said date that
the statutory period of 30 days had not elapsed and adjourned the matter to
30.03.2018; however, no fresh proclamation was issued for the adjourned date,
which is a settled legal requirement. Moreover, even on 30.03.2018, the mandatory
requirement of granting a clear notice period of not less than 30 days from the date
of publication of proclamation was not fulfilled, thereby vitiating the declaration
of the petitioner as a proclaimed person. Since proceedings under Section 174-A
IPC are consequential in nature, the same cannot survive once the foundational
proclamation is invalid.
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
2026.05.19 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
6
CRM-
CRM-M-32844-
32844-2022 (O&M)
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
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).
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.19 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
7
CRM-
CRM-M-32844-
32844-2022 (O&M)
(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).
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.19 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
8
CRM-
CRM-M-32844-
32844-2022 (O&M)
(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 30.03.2018 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
flawed proclamation. It is, therefore, a fit and appropriate case for the exercise of
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.19 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
9
CRM-
CRM-M-32844-
32844-2022 (O&M)
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 30.03.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by the
learned Chief Judicial (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari,
whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person and impugned FIR
No.334 dated 03.08.2018, registered under Section 174-A of IPC, at Police Station
Model Town, Rewari, District Rewari, as well as subsequent proceedings, are
hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
11.1. The petitioner is directed to apply for bail, whether anticipatory or
regular as deemed appropriate by him, within a period of 30 days 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 18,
18, 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.19 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
