Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhvinder Singh vs State Of Haryana on 23 April, 2026
1
CRM-
CRM-M-26504-
26504-2025
152
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-26504-
26504-2025
Sukhvinder Singh
.Petitioner
....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
Date of Decision: April 23,
23, 2026
Date of Uploading: April 23
23, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Mr. Sahil Shehrawat,, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J.
Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 10.12.1983 (Annexure P-6)) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra Kurukshetra,, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner er has contended that the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender,, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has submitted that earlier the petitioner was released on bail in the year 1981. Learned counsel has submitted that in May 1981, the petitioner travelled to Canada to earn better living. Learned counsel has submitted that as per Immigration Certificate dated 02.02.1987 (Annexure P-2),, the date of original entry of the petitioner was counsel, while pointing out to the zimni orders appended 09.05.1981. Learned counsel, with the petition, has submitted that only summons and non non-bailable bailable warrants MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.23 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2 CRM-
CRM-M-26504- 26504-2025 were issued, and there was complete non-compliance of mandatory procedure as enshrined under Section 82 Cr. P.C. and no 30 days' period was afforded to the petitioner to cause appearance before the Court below. Learned counsel has argued that, vide order dated 25.11.1983, non-bailable warrants of the petitioner and other co-accused were issued and the matter was adjourned to 10.12.1983. Learned counsel has further submitted that perusal of report dated 06.12.1983 (Annexure P-5) of the serving official shows that the petitioner refused to accept summons, whereas, as per Immigration Certificate (Annexure P-2), the petitioner could have travelled to India only in 1987 for the first time after leaving India in 1981. Learned counsel has further submitted that still the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person, vide impugned order dated 10.12.1983 passed by the Court below.
2.1. Learned counsel has submitted that vide judgment dated 23.11.1981 passed by the Court below, co-accused of the petitioner have been acquitted since prosecution had failed to prove allegations and eye-witnesses had turned hostile. 2.2. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been granted Canadian Citizenship on 21.11.1990, and the petitioner came to know about the proceedings against him from village Sarpanch, when he visited India again in February 2024.
2.3. Learned counsel has further argued that the proclamation was not done in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C., 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 being illegal and unjustified, is liable to be set-aside.
MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.23 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 3 CRM-
CRM-M-26504- 26504-2025 2.2. Learned counsel has submitted that pursuant to the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner has caused appearance before the Court below and furnished bail bonds, and the petitioner has been admitted on interim bail, vide order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the Court below.
3. Learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the status report by way of an affidavit dated 28.06.2025, which is already placed on record, 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 issuance of non-bailable warrants, the petitioner failed to cause appearance before the Court below. Learned State counsel has argued that ultimately, vide impugned order dated 10.12.1983, the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender after following 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.
Learned State counsel has, however, submitted that pursuant to the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner caused appearance before the Court below and vide order dated 25.03.2026, the petitioner has furnished bail bonds and has been released on interim bail by the Court below.
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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.23 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 4 CRM-
CRM-M-26504- 26504-2025 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, based on material on record, that such person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant cannot be executed. In the present case, it has been pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that only notices and warrants were issued against the petitioner and mandatory provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. were not followed in its true spirit. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had gone abroad in May 1981 and had returned India, first time, only in 1987. Still, vide impugned order, the petitioner has been declared as a Proclaimed Offender without following mandatory procedure as enunciated under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. 5.1. Co-accused of the petitioner have been stated to be acquitted of the charge against them, vide judgment dated 23.11.1987. 5.2. It is worthwhile to mention here that, in pursuance of the order dated 17.03.2026 by this Court in the present petition, the petitioner has duly caused appearance before the Court below, and vide order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the Court below, the petitioner has furnished the bail bonds and has been released on interim bail by the said Court, thereby evidencing his bona fide conduct and absence of any intention to evade the process of law.
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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.23 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 5 CRM-
CRM-M-26504- 26504-2025 perfunctory manner, rendering the impugned order legally unsustainable. 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: -
(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', 319' held as 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.23 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 6 CRM-
CRM-M-26504- 26504-2025 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).
(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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.23 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 7 CRM-
CRM-M-26504- 26504-2025 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 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 10.12.1983 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.23 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 8 CRM-
CRM-M-26504- 26504-2025 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.
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 10.12.1983 passed by the learned Chief Magistrate, Kurukshetra, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender, as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
(SUMEET GOEL) GOEL) JUDGE April 23, 23, 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.23 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment