Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sumanpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 14 October, 2025
CRM-M-33606-2025 and
CRM-M-52838-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
107
Date of Decision: October 14, 2025
1. CRM-M-33606-2025
Sumanpreet Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
......Respondent
2. CRM-M-52838-2025
Sumanpreet Singh alias Honey
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Mandeep Singla, Advocate (in CRM-M-33606-2025).
Mr. Kanwar Inder Singh, Advocate (in CRM-M-52838-2025)
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab,.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. This order shall decide the fate of two petitions, namely, CRM-M-33606-2025 and CRM-M-52838-2025, filed by petitioner - Sumanpreet Singh.
Backdrop of the cases:-
2. Initially, FIR No. 72, dated 10.09.2015, under Sections 22 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Kot Dharmu (now Police Station Sadar Mansa), District Mansa, and during pendency of the proceedings in the said case, petitioner ceased to appear before the Court.
1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 21:51:09 ::: CRM-M-33606-2025 and CRM-M-52838-2025 2 Consequently, after following the due process of law, the Special Court, Mansa, declared the petitioner as a 'Proclaimed Offender', vide order dated 24.11.2022. Following the declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed offender, second FIR No. 304, dated 11.12.2022, under Section 174-A IPC, was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Sadar Mansa, District Mansa.
3. Assailing the proclamation order dated 24.11.2022, passed by Special Court, Mansa, only, without disclosing the factum of registration of second FIR No. 304, dated 11.12.2022, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., bearing CRM-M-59513-2023, for quashing the order dated 24.11.2022.
4. During proceedings of CRM-M-59513-2023, in para No. 3(vi) of the status report filed by the respondent - State, it was specifically pointed out that pursuant to the proclamation order dated 24.11.2022, FIR No. 304 was registered on 11.12.2022 and even challan against the petitioner for the offence under Section 174-A IPC was presented on 07.10.2023.
CRM-M-59513-2023 was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by holding in para Nos. 9 and 10 of its order dated 18.07.2025, as under:-
"9. In the present case also, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the proclamation was issued on 07.09.2022 and the petitioner was required to appear before the trial Court on 29.10.2022. On 29.10.2022, the case was adjourned to 24.11.2022 for appearance of the present petitioner. However, there was no order in the publication for the accused requiring him to appear before the Court on 24.11.2022. Rather, no proclamation was issued for 2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 21:51:10 ::: CRM-M-33606-2025 and CRM-M-52838-2025 3 requiring the petitioner to appear before the trial Court on 24.11.2022 and the impugned order is unsustainable.
10. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 24.11.2022 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Special Court, Mansa, whereby, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner only."
5. It is thereafter that the petitioner has now filed present petitions, i.e. CRM-M-33606-2025 and CRM-M-52838-2025. Prayer in CRM-M-33606-2025:-
6. In this petition, filed under Section 482 of BNSS, petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 304, dated 11.12.2022, under Section 174-A IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Mansa, District Mansa.
Prayer in CRM-M-52838-2025:-
7. In this petition, filed under Section 528 of BNSS, petitioner has sought quashing of the same FIR, i.e. FIR No. 304, dated 11.12.2022, under Section 174-A IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Mansa, District Mansa.
Observation of this Court in the order dated 09.10.2025, passed in CRM-M-33606-2025:-
8. On 09.10.2025, when CRM-M-33606-2025 came up for consideration, after noticing broad facts of the case, this Court made following observations in para Nos. 5 and 6 of the order dated 09.10.2025:
"5. Upon examination of the order dated 18.07.2025, it is evident that the order dated 24.11.2022 whereby petitioner was declared proclaimed offender, was indeed quashed. The order also reveals that FIR No.304 3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 21:51:10 ::: CRM-M-33606-2025 and CRM-M-52838-2025 4 dated 11.12.2022 was registered just 17 days after the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender, though this fact may not have been brought to the Court's attention earlier. However, concluding part of the said order dated 18.07.2025 states that along with the order dated 24.11.2022 declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender, all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are also quashed with respect to the petitioner.
This implies that the State's compliance with the Court's direction, registering FIR No.304 dated 11.12.2022 under Section 174-A IPC, has been nullified by quashing of the PO order. Therefore, the consequential proceedings stemming from the PO order have also been quashed by the co-ordinate Bench, vide order dated 18.07.2025.
6. This creates a peculiar situation wherein the PO order, along with all consequential proceedings, has been quashed, still petitioner has filed present anticipatory bail petition, which in fact, would not be maintainable once the consequential proceedings have already been quashed."
9. Today, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not submit any plausible explanation as to how these petitions, i.e. one for grant of anticipatory bail, and the other for quashing of FIR are maintainable or even could have been entertained in view of the final outcome of the first petition filed by the petitioner, i.e. CRM-M-59513- 2023, decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 18.07.2025.
10. In view of this, both the petitions are not maintainable. Furthermore, petitioner had no cause of action to file the aforementioned petitions. Accordingly, the same are hereby dismissed.
11. Before parting, it is also apposite to mention that during course of hearing of these two petitions, learned State counsel brought to the notice of this Court judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana and another, Law Finder 4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 21:51:10 ::: CRM-M-33606-2025 and CRM-M-52838-2025 5 Doc Id # 2679845 : 2025 (1) RCR (Criminal) 406, wherein following questions of law came up for consideration:-
"......whether the proclaimed offender status, under the provisions of the Cr.P.C., of an accused can subsist if such accused stands acquitted during trial in connection to the very same offence; and whether the subsistence of the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is necessary for the authorities to proceed against an accused against whom such a proclamation stands issued, under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC")."
12. In the said case, the appellant/accused Daljit Singh, initially approached this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of Complaint Case; summoning order; and the order declaring him a proclaimed offender.
13. After dismissal of the petition by the High Court, Special Leave Petition was filed and during its pendency, the appellant/accused Daljit Singh was exonerated in the germane proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It was in this backdrop that the Hon'ble Apex Court formulated the aforementioned questions, and answered as under:-
"7.1 The purpose of Section 82 Cr.P.C., as can be understood from a bare reading of the statutory text is to ensure that a person who is called to appear before a Court, does so. This Section appears as part of Chapter VI which is titled 'Process to Compel Appearance'. Section 83 to 90 provide for the additional method of attachment of property to the end of securing appearance. Necessarily then some or the other proceeding has to be ongoing for which the presence of such person is necessary. The words of the Section dictate that it can be only issued in respect of a person against whom a warrant has been issued. Neither a warrant nor proclamation subsequent can be conjured up out of thin air.
7.2 Section 174A IPC, inserted by the 2005 Amendment to the Indian Penal Code inserts a substantive offence, 5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 21:51:10 ::: CRM-M-33606-2025 and CRM-M-52838-2025 6 prescribing punishment of three years or fine or both when such proclamation is issued under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. and, seven years and fine if the said proclamation is under Subsection (4) thereof. The object and purpose of this Section is to ensure penal consequences for defiance of a Court order requiring a person's presence.
7.3 Now, what happens if the status under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is nullified i.e., the person subjected to such proclamation, by virtue of subsequent developments is no longer required to be presented before a Court of law. Then, can the prosecution still proceed against such a person for having not appeared before a Court during the time that the process was in effect. The answer is in the affirmative. We say so for the following reasons:-
(i) The language of Section 174A, IPC says "whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by proclamation...".
This implies that the very instance at which a person is directed to appear, and he does not do so, this Section comes into play;
(ii) What further flows from the language employed is that the instance of non-appearance becomes an infraction of the Section, and therefore, prosecution therefor would be independent of Section 82, Cr.P.C. being in effect;
(iii) So, while proceedings under Section 174A IPC cannot be initiated independent of Section 82, Cr.P.C., i.e., can only be started post the issuance of proclamation, they can continue if the said proclamation is no longer in effect.
(iv) We find that the Delhi High Court has taken this view, i.e., that Section 174A, IPC is a stand-alone offence in Mukesh Bhatia v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC Online Del 1023; Divya Verma v. State, 2023 SCC Online Del 2619; Sameena & Anr. v. State GNCT of Delhi & Anr., Crl. M.C No, 1470 of 2021, Dated 17th May, 2022 For the reasons afore-stated, we agree with the findings made in these judgments/orders. At the same time, it stands clarified that we have not commented on the merits of the cases.
(v) Granted that the offence prescribed in Section 174A IPC is indeed stand-alone, given that it arises 6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 21:51:10 ::: CRM-M-33606-2025 and CRM-M-52838-2025 7 out of an original offence in connection with which proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is initiated and in the said offence the accused stands, subsequently, acquitted, it would be permissible in law for the Court seized of the trial under such offence, to take note of such a development and treat the same as a ground to draw the proceedings to a close, should such a prayer be made and the circumstances of the case so warrant.
8. In conclusion, we hold that Section 174A IPC is an independent, substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation under Section 82, Cr.P.C. is extinguished. It is a stand-alone offence. That being the position of law, let us now turn to the present facts. As we have already noted supra, the Appellant stands acquitted of the main offence."
14. When the factual aspects of the cases in hand are seen in conspectus of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Daljit Singh (supra), it is found that the same are on different footing. In the present cases, the proclamation order dated 24.11.2022 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom have been quashed qua the petitioner by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 18.07.2025, passed in CRM-M-59513-2023.
15. In light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Daljit Singh (supra), it is expedient to note that several cases are listed before this Court on daily basis seeking quashing of the proclamation orders passed by the Trial Court, vide which accused is declared as a 'Proclaimed Person' or 'Proclaimed Offender' (PO). Consequential effect of passing such proclamation order(s) is registration of a case FIR against that accused, for commission of substantive offence under Section 174-A of the IPC (now Section 209 of the BNS). In other words, the latter FIR is solely registered on account of absence of the 7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 21:51:10 ::: CRM-M-33606-2025 and CRM-M-52838-2025 8 accused from Court proceedings in a given case which was registered against him prior in time, and leading to his/her/their declaration as a proclaimed person/proclaimed offender.
16. This Court is also frequently observing about filing of two separate petitions concerning the same matter, in the same manner as has been done by the petitioner in the present petitions. To elaborate, in one petition the proclamation order is challenged and it neglects to mention or address the consequential registration of the First Information Report (FIR) under Section 174-A of the IPC. A separate petition for quashing of FIR, registered for commission of substantive offence under Section 174-A of IPC is then filed.
17. This practice suggests that the petitioner(s) or their respective counsel may be filing petitions without complete, updated knowledge or facts regarding whether the consequential FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC has already been registered after the accused was declared a Proclaimed Person/Offender.
18. Therefore, this Court is of the firm opinion that it is incumbent upon the Registry of this Court to confirm this fact at the time of scrutiny of cases at the initial stage of filing thereof. This confirmation should be by way of specific averment, declaration, paragraph or note to be inserted by the petitioner(s) in the petition, specifically mentioning about registration or non-registration of any such FIR for commission of substantive offence under Section 174-A of the IPC.
19. This exercise is required to be undertaken for the reason that while dealing with the petition concerning quashing of proclamation 8 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 21:51:10 ::: CRM-M-33606-2025 and CRM-M-52838-2025 9 order, the concerned Court then becomes fully aware of the consequential registration of the FIR under Section 174-A IPC, enabling it to pass a complete and exhaustive order that addresses both the sustainability of the proclamation order and the consequential proceedings, in accordance with law.
20. For future adherence to such a practice by the Registry of this Court, let this order be brought to the notice of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, for passing appropriate orders on administrative side and taking required steps in this regard.
21. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
October 14, 2025
Pkapoor
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 21:51:10 :::