Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhveer Chand vs State Of Punjab And Another on 11 December, 2025
CRM-M-56341-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
134 CRM-M-56341-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 11.12.2025
LAKHVEER CHAND
...Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY
Present: Mr. S.S. Maini, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL)
CRM-50247-2025 This is an application filed under Section 528 BNSS to place on record interim/zimni orders as Annexure P-7.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Interim/zimni orders (Annexure P-7) are taken on record.
CRM-M-56341-2025
1. Petitioner, an accused in NACT No.32 of 2023 titled "Amar Singh Vs. Lakhveer Chand", has prayed for quashing of order dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot, vide which he was declared as "Proclaimed Person".
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not aware about the aforesaid complaint, which was filed on 18.01.2023, as he had gone abroad on 07.10.2022. In the said complaint based on preliminary evidence, 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2025 17:27:39 ::: CRM-M-56341-2025 (O&M) -2- learned Magistrate vide order dated 06.09.2023 summoned the petitioner as an accused to face trial u/s 138 NI Act. On 18.10.2023, when the case was listed for his appearance, summons were received back with the report that accused- petitioner is out of country, hence, complainant was directed to furnish his correct address in foreign land. The case remained pending for the said purpose for few dates, when on 21.05.2024, the correct address of the petitioner was filed (as can be inferred from copy of order of the said date appended along with CRM-50247- 2025). Further in terms of said order, learned Magistrate instead of resorting to the provisions of Section 105 Cr.P.C. (now Section 110 BNSS), summoned the accused through publication in the newspaper "The Tribune" for 15.07.2024. On the said day, publication was not received back and the case was adjourned for the same purpose for 01.08.2024. Order on similar lines were passed on 01.08.2024 and 16.08.2024. On 16.09.2024, even though the publication issued against petitioner was not received back but learned Magistrate presumed, without their being any cogent material available on record, that the accused is intentionally avoiding to appear in the Court and initiated Proclamation Proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) for 14.10.2024.
Perusal of the order dated 14.10.2024 further goes to show that on the said day, since the statutory period of 30 days had not elapsed, case was adjourned to 18.11.2024 for appearance of the accused, when petitioner was declared "Proclaimed Person" (vide order dated 18.11.2024).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold submissions:-
Firstly, that in the light of the fact that a report had been received by the learned Magistrate in October, 2023 that petitioner is residing abroad, his
2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2025 17:27:40 ::: CRM-M-56341-2025 (O&M) -3- presence should have been procured in accordance with provisions of Section 105 Cr.P.C.
Secondly, as per settled proposition of law, period of 30 days from the issuance of publication of proclamation was required to be given to the accused. In the present case as notice above, on 14.10.2024, the case was adjourned only on the ground that statutory period of 30 days had not been over. Such an adjournment, as per learned counsel, cannot be treated as compliance of requisite provisions.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel places reliance upon following judgments:-
1. Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 550
2. CRM-M-40897-2019 titled as Prit Pal Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 03.02.2020.
Thus, on the face of it, the proclamation order dated 18.11.2024 being not in 'sync' with law, is illegal. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that now the petitioner is wanting to return back to India and join the trial proceedings. Learned counsel further intimates that on coming to India, petitioner would surrender before the Court concerned. However, he requests that the petitioner may kindly be granted adequate protection from his arrest, thereby enabling him to surrender before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned.
3. Heard. Before proceeding further, let us carefully go through Section 105 Cr.P.C (now Section 110 BNSS), which reads as under:-
3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2025 17:27:40 ::: CRM-M-56341-2025 (O&M) -4-
"105. Reciprocal arrangements regarding processes. (1) Where a Court in the territories to which this Code extends (hereafter in this section referred to as the said territories) desires that
(a) a summons to an accused person, or
(b) a warrant for the arrest of an accused person, or
(c) a summons to any person requiring him to attend and produce a document or other thing, or to produce it, or
(d) a search-warrant, [issued by it shall be served or executed at any place, -
(i) xxxxxxxx
(ii) in any country of place outside India in respect of which arrangements have been made by the Central Government with the Government of such country or place for service or execution of summons or warrant in relation to criminal matters (hereafter in this section referred to as the contracting State), it may send such summons or warrant in duplicate in such form, directed to such Court, Judge or Magistrate, and sent to such authority for transmission, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf;] (2) Where a Court in the said territories has received for service or execution -
(a) a summons to an accused person, or
(b) a warrant for the arrest of an accused person, or
(c) a summons to any person requiring him to attend and produce a document or other thin or to product it, or
(d) a search-warrant, [issued by -
(i) a Court in any State or are in India outside the said territories;
4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2025 17:27:40 ::: CRM-M-56341-2025 (O&M) -5-
(ii) a Court, Judge or Magistrate in a contracting State, it shall cause the same to be served or executed] as if it were a summons or warrant received by it from another Court in the said territories for service or execution within its local jurisdiction; and where -
(i) a warrant of arrest has been executed, the person arrested shall, so far as possible, be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Sections 80 and 81;
(ii) a search-warrant has been executed, the things found in the search shall, so far as possible, be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Section 101 :
[Provided that in a case where a summons or search warrant received from a contracting State has been executed, the documents or things produced or things found in the search shall he forwarded to the Court issuing the summons or search warrant through such authority as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf.]"
In the case in hand, admittedly, it was intimated to the trial Court that the petitioner has left for foreign land. In this eventuality, trial Court should have adhered to the procedure so prescribed under Section 105 (1)(ii) Cr.P.C., rather to procure presence of petitioner, Publication was issued in the newspaper "The Tribune" furthermore, without there being any material on record, to conclude that despite being aware of the pendency of proceedings, petitioner is deliberately avoiding to appear in the Court, Proclamation Proceedings were initiated Secondly, a bare perusal of order dated 14.10.2024 reveals that the learned Magistrate was conscious of the fact that same period of 30 days from the date when the publication of proclamation was effected by the Executing Constable and when the accused was directed to appear before the Court, had not lapsed, therefore, adjourned the matter for 18.11.2024.
5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2025 17:27:40 ::: CRM-M-56341-2025 (O&M) -6- While interpreting, the provision of Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C., this Court in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 550, held that a period of 30 days is required to be given to the accused and that even in case, the Court adjourns the matter subsequently, such adjournment beyond 30 days cannot be treated as compliance of requisite provisions.
Similar proposition of law was laid down in Prit Pal Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, CRM-M-40897-2019, decided on 03.02.2020.
Resultantly, for want of compliance of the procedure so mentioned in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, proclamation order dated 18.11.2024 is hereby set aside. In view of the prayer made by learned counsel, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to return to India and to surrender before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned, and that, the underlying object behind declaring any person a "Proclaimed Person/Offender"
is to secure his presence for facing trial, this Court deems it appropriate to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to surrender before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned within a period of one month from today i.e. till 12.01.2026. The arrest of petitioner shall remain stayed only up to 12.01.2026 and he shall not be arrested at the Airport concerned, upon his arrival from abroad.
However, it is clarified that if the petitioner does not, comply with aforesaid direction and surrender before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned upto the stipulated period, the protection regarding his arrest, as granted hereinabove, shall stand ipso facto vacated, without any further reference to this Court.
It is also clarified that the moment the petitioner surrenders, this order granting interim protection would cease to operate, and thereupon, the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned shall proceed further in
6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2025 17:27:40 ::: CRM-M-56341-2025 (O&M) -7- accordance with law. No observations made hereinabove shall have any bearing on the merits of the bail application, which shall be decided, as per law.
Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of.
(AARADHNA SAWHNEY)
JUDGE
11.12.2025
Nisha Yadav
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2025 17:27:40 :::