Binder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another

128

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-61299-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 30.10.2026

Binder Singh ……Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ..….Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

Present: Mr. S.S. Dhillon, Advocate,
for the petitioner.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (Oral).
The present petition, instituted under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, assails the order
dated 07.10.2026 (Annexure P.1) passed by the Court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib,
whereby the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person.
2. The facts, as emanating from the paper book, are
that in a complaint instituted by respondent No.2-complainant
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for
short `the NI Act’), vide order dated 27.05.2025, the trial Court
after recording the preliminary evidence of the complainant,
summoned the petitioner to face the trial. As the notice issued
was received back unserved, fresh notice was issued for
01.09.2025 vide order dated 09.07.2025. Similar was the
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.04 10.16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61299-2026 (O&M) [2]

condition on 01.09.2025. The notice was received back with the
report of refusal and affixation and thus, the trial Court vide
order dated 24.10.2025, issued bailable warrants for 19.12.2025
to procure the presence of the petitioner. However, on
19.12.2025, the petitioner was served through non-bailable
warrants. Subsequently, when the said warrants were received
back unexecuted, the Court ordered issuance of proclamation
vide order dated 18.02.2026 and ultimately vide order dated
07.10.2026, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
order vide which the petitioner was declared a proclaimed
person is not sustainable, for, at no point of time, was the
petitioner served and even the order issuing proclamation under
Section 82 Cr.P.C., was not passed in accordance with law.
3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is willing to surrender before the trial Court, but
apprehends that since he has been declared a proclaimed
person, the moment he surrenders, he would be taken into
custody.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on
behalf of respondent No.1.
6. There would be no necessity of issuing notice to the
respondent-complainant, for, in view of the nature of the order
that is proposed to be passed, no prejudice would be caused to
her.
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.04 10.16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61299-2026 (O&M) [3]

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel the petitioner.
8. A perusal of the interlocutory orders passed by the
trial Court shows that on 27.05.2025, the petitioner was ordered
to be summoned. The said order reads as under:-
“Heard on point of summoning. Record perused.
The allegations against accused are that in order to
discharge his legal liability, he issued cheque for an
amount of Rs.8,30,000/- dated 11.06.2024 bearing
no.033548 drawn on Central Bank of India Ex.C1 in
favour of complainant. However, when the said cheque
was presented for encashment, same was received back
dishonoured vide memo Ex.C2 on account of "Funds
Insufficient". Thereafter legal notice dated 05.07.2024 as
Ex.C3 was served upon the accused through registered
post vide postal receipt Ex. C4 but the accused failed to
pay the amount of said cheque and copy of compromise
as Ex.C5. Therefore from the evidence so produced by the
complainant, sufficient grounds are made out to proceed
against accused U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accordingly, accused Binder Singh is ordered to be
summoned to face trial for offence punishable U/s 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act for 16.07.2025 on filing copy
of complaint/list of witnesses, PF/DM etc within 7 days.
Dasti summons be also given if so desired.”
9. A further perusal of the certain interlocutory orders
passed by the trial Court shows that the summons issued were
received back unserved with the result that firstly bailable
warrants were issued and when the said warrants remained
unexecuted, non-bailable warrants were issued. Ultimately, vide
order dated 18.02.2026, the trial Court issued proclamation
against the petitioner. The said order reads as under:-
“Non bailable warrants of accused Binder Singh
received back unexecuted. This court is satisfied and has
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.04 10.16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61299-2026 (O&M) [4]

reason to believe that the accused is absconding and is
concealing himself so that warrant cannot be executed in
the ordinary manner. As such, accused be summoned
through proclamation. The period of 30 days is required
to be given. Proclamation be effected on or before
10.03.2026 and presence of accused be awaited for
15.04.2026.
KYC details of accused not received. Ahlmad is
directed to issued notice to the Central bank of India to
produce the KYC details of accused date fixed.”

10. It may be noticed that from 15.04.2026 till
25.08.2026, the matter remained pending for the service of the
Serving Constable and furnishing of KYC by the concerned bank.
As noticed above, ultimately vide order dated 07.10.2026, the
petitioner was declared a proclaimed person. The said order
reads as under:-
“For the reasons mentioned in the application,
personal appearance of complainant is exempted for
today only.
Today Amandeep Singh Clerk, Central Bank of
India has come present and suffered a statement that he
produced the KYC details of accused and produced
attested photo-copies of adhaar card and voter card of
accused which are duly attested by Ms.Nisha, Assistant
Manager. As the KYC details of accused has been
produced in compliance of the order of this court.
Proclamation of accused Binder Singh effected on
14.03.2026 and the case was fixed for awaiting presence
of accused till 15.04.2026 from the date of proclamation
till the date fixed in the proclamation for awaiting
presence of the accused. The period of 30 days has
already been lapsed but accused has failed to turn up
before this Court. Today Serving Constable has come
present and his statement qua the proclamation of
accused has been recorded. As such, accused Binder
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.04 10.16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61299-2026 (O&M) [5]

Singh is declared Proclaimed Person. Intimation in this
regard be sent to the concerned quarter, P.O. Staff.
Now, the case is adjourned to 05.11.2026 for
complainant evidence under Section 335 BNSS (299 of
CrPC).”

11. Before proceeding to examine the legality of the
impugned order, it would be apposite to refer to the statutory
provisions and the law on the subject.
12. Section 82 Cr.P.C lays down 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
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.04 10.16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61299-2026 (O&M) [6]

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).”
13. In the case of Sonu Vs. State of Haryana, 2021(1)
RCR (Criminal) 319, a coordinate Bench, while examining
Section 82 Cr.P.C, summarised the essential requirements for
issuance and publication of proclamation against an
absconder and declaring him a proclaimed person/offender;
“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).
(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
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.04 10.16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61299-2026 (O&M) [7]

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
Bishundayal Mahton 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)
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.04 10.16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61299-2026 (O&M) [8]

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).
(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
noncompliance 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
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.04 10.16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61299-2026 (O&M) [9]

another: 1994 CriLJ 1783 and Pal Singh v. The State:
1955 CriLJ 318.”
14. Clearly, while summarising the requirements, the
Coordinate Bench referred to almost the entire law on the
subject. Still further, there can be no gainsaying the fact that
the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. are required to be complied
with scrupulously.
15. It, therefore, emerges that prior to the issuance of a
proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C, the Court concerned
would be required to record its satisfaction that the accused,
against whom such a proclamation was sought to be issued was
absconding or was concealing himself/herself with an intention
to evade arrest. This satisfaction is required to be recorded by a
Court initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C on account
of the grave civil and criminal ramifications that the provision
has qua the rights of an accused.
16. Reverting to the facts of the case in hand, on a
perusal of the file, it emerges that the summoning order was
passed on 27.05.2025, but the petitioner was not served. The
order dated 24.10.2025 noticed that the summons issued to the
petitioner had been received back with the report of refusal and
affixation. Under the circumstances, bailable warrants were
issued. The said warrants were received back with the report
that the petitioner was avoiding service. Accordingly, non-
bailable warrants were issued. The same were received back
unexecuted. The trial Court then recorded its satisfaction as
envisaged under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and initiated the
proceedings. It was ordered that proclamation be effected on or
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.04 10.16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61299-2026 (O&M) [10]

before 10.03.2026 and the matter was fixed for 15.04.2026 for
awaiting the service. On 15.04.2026, the proclamation was
received back duly effected but the serving constable did not
appear and the case was adjourned to 02.05.2026. Thereafter,
the case was again adjourned on 2-3 occasions and finally, by
way of the impugned order dated 07.10.2026, the trial Court
noticed that the period of 30 days had elapsed, but the petitioner
did not appear. The statement of the serving constable was
recorded on that day and the petitioner was declared a
proclaimed person.
17. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial
Court erred in following the aforesaid procedure for, publication
had been effected but the serving constable had not appeared
and as such, the Court could not have adjourned the case any
further for recording the statement of the serving constable or
the presence of the petitioner. The trial Court, therefore,
committed an illegality and therefore, the order is not
sustainable and is accordingly set aside. However, keeping in
view the conduct of the petitioner, for, he did not appear
pursuant to he having been served, costs of Rs.15,000/- are
imposed upon him, which shall be deposited with the District
Legal Services Authority, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
18. If the petitioner surrenders before the trial Court
within a period of 30 days from today and moves an application
for bail, the same be decided expeditiously, in accordance with
law. However, in case, the petitioner does not appear, which may
be an eventuality as he may be interested in only getting the
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.04 10.16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61299-2026 (O&M) [11]

order declaring him a proclaimed person set aside, the present
petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The Court is
impelled to pass this order because now the petitioner has
knowledge of the proceedings and has given an undertaking to
surrender before the trial Court. No one should be permitted to
misuse the process of law by assailing an order on technical
grounds and then taking undue advantage of the said order
having been set aside, which will tantamount to frustrating the
proceedings before the trial Court. A Court is expected to
balance the equities and in order to achieve that, this Court
deems it appropriate to pass the instant order.
19. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above
terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
30.10.2026 JUDGE
ds
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No


DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.04 10.16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document