Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dasrath Alias Dashrat vs State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2025
CRM-M-64303 of 2025 -1-
S. No.126
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-64303 of 2025
Date of Decision:14.11.2025
Dasrath @ Dashrat .....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab .....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present:- Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jatinderpal Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been instituted under Section 482 Cr.P.C/528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing order dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P.9) passed by learned JMIC, Derabassi, whereby the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed person in case bearing No.CHA/66/2023 titled "State Vs. Dasrath etc." in case FIR No.63 dated 19.02.2023 registered under Sections 61, 78(2) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Upon notice, the State Counsel has appeared. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and material placed on the file has been perused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been wrongly declared as a proclaimed person. He never received any summons/ warrants from the trial Court and serious efforts were not made by the trial Court to secure his presence. On perusal of the paper book, it is revealed that during the 1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 16-11-2025 02:55:56 ::: CRM-M-64303 of 2025 -2- proceedings of case FIR No.63 dated 19.02.2023 registered under Sections 61, 78(2) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), warrants of arrest against petitioner Dasrath @ Dashrat were directed to be issued initially vide order dated 29.02.2024. On 02.09.2024, warrants of arrest were received back unexecuted but, it is not mentioned as to what was the report on the warrants of arrest and simply by recording satisfaction that the accused has intentionally absconded from the process of law and the presence of accused cannot be procured otherwise than through the proclamation warrants under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C was ordered to be issued and tamili/ serving official was directed to execute the same. On 28.11.2024, proclamation was got effected and the report was made by serving constable to the effect that he has pasted one photostat copy of notice on the wall of Balmik Mandir due to incomplete address of accused Dasrath and one copy thereof has been affixed in the open public place park of Baba Jiwan Singh Nagar and one copy of notice was pasted at notice board of the Court. On 13.12.2024, the proclamation was received back duly effected and the statement of serving constable was recorded and the case was adjourned to 20.01.2025 for awaiting appearance of the accused. On 20.01.2025, petitioner was declared a Proclaimed Person. Learned counsel contended that no proclamation had been issued against the accused for 20.01.2025 and as such, he did not have any knowledge that he was required to appear before the Court on 20.01.2025 and impugned order dated 20.01.2025, vide which he has been declared Proclaimed Person is thus illegal and nonest.
2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 16-11-2025 02:55:57 ::: CRM-M-64303 of 2025 -3-
4. Learned counsel further contended that as per order dated 20.01.2025, proclamation issued against accused was received back executed and statement of serving constable was recorded in which he stated that he has pasted one photostat copy of notice on the wall of Balmik Mandir due to incomplete address of accused Dasrath and one copy thereof has been affixed in the open public place park of Baba Jiwan Singh Nagar and one copy of notice was pasted at notice board of Hon'ble Court. However, the proclamation was not publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town where the accused resided and it was thus violation of provisions of Section 82(2)(i)(a) of Cr.P.C and on this score also, proclamation is invalid and a nullity and proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C are thus liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon 2022(1) Law Herald 219 - Rahul Dureja and another Vs. State of Punjab, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 493 - Harvinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2024(1) Law Herald 859 - Mahender Kumar Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., 2024(1) Law Herald 291 - Ramandeep Singh Sangha @ Ramna Sangha Vs. State of Punjab, and 2024(2) RCR (Criminal) 5- Sukhjinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another.
5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has argued that the petitioner could not be served when his non-bailable warrants were issued and thereafter, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued and he was declared Proclaimed Person. Learned State Counsel has contended that the impugned order is well reasoned and speaking and does not call for any interference and petition deserves to be dismissed.
3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 16-11-2025 02:55:57 ::: CRM-M-64303 of 2025 -4-
6. Before proceeding further, relevant orders dated 29.02.2024, 02.09.2024, 13.12.2024, 20.01.2025 and report dated 28.11.2024 of serving constable reproduced as under:-
"Today both accused have not turned up. They absent from the court without any intimation. Perusal of case file shows that accused were earlier appeared in the court but later on he absent from the court without any intimation or any exemption application has been received. In view of the absence of both the accused, bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by both the accused are hereby cancelled and forfeited to the State. Now presence of both accused be procured through non bailable warrants for 27.05.2025."
Date of Order: 29.02.2024 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, UID NO.PB00456 Non-bailable warrants issued against accused Dasrath received back unserved, whereas non-bailable warrants issued against Rahul Kumar not received back. Ld. App for the State submitted that accused persons were earlier appearing in the Court but later on they absented from the Court without any intimation nor any exemption application has been moved on behalf of the accused persons. Their bail bonds and surety bonds have already cancelled and forfeited to the State. Today, bail granted to the accused persons is hereby cancelled.
4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 16-11-2025 02:55:57 ::: CRM-M-64303 of 2025 -5- In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused have intentionally absconded from the process of law and the presence of the accused cannot be procured otherwise than through the proclamation warrants under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Thus, in order to procure the presence of the accused Dasrath and Rahul Kumar and in order to expedite the proceedings, the proclamation warrants under Section 82 Cr.P.C qua the accused Dasrath and Rahul Kumar be issued for 13.12.2024.
A note should be given on the proclamation warrants that the Tamili/Serving Official should execute the same at least before 30 days from the date fixed in the Court. For awaiting the report of proclamation to come up on the date fixed.
Date of Order: 02.09.2024 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, UID NO.PB00456 Proclamation warrants issued against the accused Dasrath and Rahul Kumar received back effected but none has turned up. Statement of serving constable recorded. Period of 30 days has not been elapsed yet. As such, case is adjourned to 20.01.2025 for awaiting presence of accused Dasrath and Rahul Kumar. Date of Order: 13.12.2024 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Derabassi UID NO.PB00456 Today, the case is fixed for awaiting presence of accused Dasrath and Rahul Kumar but none has turned up. Period of 30 days has been elapsed from the date of proclamation. Accused has not 5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 16-11-2025 02:55:57 ::: CRM-M-64303 of 2025 -6- turned up in the Court as such accused Dasrath and Rahul Kumar are declared as "Proclaimed Person". Intimation in this regard be sent to concerned SHO.
Now, to come upon 29.03.2025 for evidence under section 299 Cr.P.C. PWs mentioned at Sr.No.3 and 7 be summoned for date fixed.
Date of Order: 20.01.2025 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Derabassi UID NO.PB-0456 Report of Serving Constable:
It is requested that one Photostat copy of Notice is affixed at the wall of Balmik Mandir due to incomplete address of accused Dasrath son of Kishan Singh resident of Back side Balmik Mandir, Baba Jiwan Singh Nagar, Sohiya Road, Sangrur, District Sangrur and 1 photostat copy of notice has been affixed in the open public park of Baba Jiwan Singh Nagar, and 1 photostat copy of Notice has been pasted at notice board of Hon'ble Court. Report is submitted.
ASI Gurtej Singh Police Station Zirakpur Date 28-11-24"
7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding CRM-M-41656- 2023 titled Pardeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana vide judgment dated 23.8.2023 has held that before issuance of proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., the Court must deliberate on its previous efforts to secure presence of the accused
6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 16-11-2025 02:55:57 ::: CRM-M-64303 of 2025 -7- through other legally permissible means. These efforts encompass issuance of summons and the execution of bailable and/or non-bailable warrants against the accused. It is incumbent upon the Court to ascertain that individual in question has indeed absconded or is concealing himself to evade execution of warrants of arrest. It has been further held that phrase, 'reasons to believe' as articulated in Section 82 of Cr.P.C. signifies that the Court must derive its belief from the available evidence and material that the concerned person has absconded or is concealing himself to evade the execution of warrants of arrest. It has been further held that once proclamation is issued, it must be set forth in the proclamation as to where and when the concerned individual must present himself. A designated location and time must be stipulated. Importantly, the specific date and time for appearance should not be less than 30 days from the date of publication of the proclamation.
8. A perusal of order dated 02.09.2024 shows that the warrant of arrest issued against the accused was received back unexecuted but the reasons as to why the same have not been executed is not mentioned in the order and the Court observed that the accused have absconded from the process of law and the presence of the accused cannot be procured otherwise than through the proclamation warrants under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and ordered issuance of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. However, no satisfaction was recorded by the trial Magistrate that accused is concealing himself to evade the warrants and that he cannot be served in ordinary manner and without recording satisfaction to this effect, the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. could not have been initiated against the accused. Besides this, the proclamation was finally issued for 7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 16-11-2025 02:55:57 ::: CRM-M-64303 of 2025 -8- 13.12.2024 and after the statement of serving constable was recorded on 13.12.2024, case was adjourned to 20.01.2025 for awaiting appearance of the accused and the accused was ultimately declared a proclaimed person on 20.01.2025. However, no proclamation had been issued for 20.01.2025, which infact, had been issued for 13.12.2024. In this manner, accused did not have any knowledge that he was required to appear before the Court on 20.01.2025, as no proclamation had been issued against him for that date and he was, thus, misled and proper procedure, thus, has not been followed by not mentioning the designated location and time, where he was supposed to appear.
9. In the present case, proclamation was issued on 02.09.2024 for 13.12.2024 and the same was got effected on 28.11.2024. On 13.12.2024, the statement of serving constable was recorded. In his statement, serving constable stated that he has pasted one photostat copy of notice on the wall of Balmik Mandir due to incomplete address of accused Dasrath and one copy thereof has been affixed in the open public place park of Baba Jiwan Singh Nagar and one copy of notice has been pasted at notice board of the Court. However, the proclamation was not read publicly at some conspicuous place of the town, where the accused ordinarily resided. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rahul Dureja's case (supra), has held that if there is non compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 82(2)(i)(a) of Cr.P.C. and proclamation is not read publicly in same conspicuous place of the town or village where the accused ordinarily resides, the accused is deprived of the knowledge of proclamation and on this score, the proclamation notice is liable to be quashed. In Harvinder Singh's case 8 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 16-11-2025 02:55:57 ::: CRM-M-64303 of 2025 -9- (supra), it has been further held that if proclamation is not read publicly in the village where accused resided, it is not an irregularity but it renders proclamation and subsequent proceedings as nullity. On this score also, the proceedings initiated under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner are invalid.
10. As a result of aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that proper procedure has not been followed by the trial Court while declaring petitioner a proclaimed person and the impugned order, thus, suffers from material irregularities and illegalities and the same is, thus, not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the present petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P.9) vide which, the petitioner was declared proclaimed person and all consequential proceedings are set aside.
11. Pending misc. applications(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Yashvir Singh Rathor)
Judge
November 14, 2025
renu
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 16-11-2025 02:55:57 :::