Maninderjeet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-49343-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.09.2026


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

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

Present: Mr. Munish Garg, 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 24.09.2024 (Annexure P.6) passed by the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, Ist Class, Barnala, whereby the petitioner was
declared a proclaimed person.
2. The facts, as emanating from the paper book, are
that a complaint was instituted by respondent No.2 under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short
`the Act’). Summoning order was passed on 22.02.2023. The
petitioner caused appearance on 24.03.2023 and was granted
bail. However, surety bonds were not furnished and permission
was sought to furnish the same on the next date of hearing,
which was fixed as 08.05.2023. However, on two dates
DALBIR SINGH
2026.09.10 12.07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49343-2026 (O&M) [2]

thereafter, the surety bonds were not furnished. The petitioner
did not appear on 17.07.2023. Thereafter, he did not appear on
few dates. His bail was eventually cancelled on 06.11.2023 and
non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued to procure his
presence.
2.1 On 15.12.2023, the following order was passed:-
“This Court is of the view that accused is
intentionally avoiding the process of court and
cannot be summoned through ordinary manner.
Therefore, in the interest of justice proclamation
against the accused be issued for 24.01.2024.
Serving Official is directed to affect the
proclamation on or before 22.12.2023 and to
appear before the court on 22.12.2023.”

2.3 Thereafter, similar orders were passed on few dates.
Subsequently, on 26.07.2024, the following order was passed:-
File put up before me being Duty Magistrate
“
as Learned Presiding Officer is availing joining time
from 24.07.2024 to 26.07.2024.
Proclamation received back effected.
Statement of Serving Official not been recorded as
he has not appeared before the court. Keeping in
view his report and proclamation warrants executed
on dated 17.07.2024, this court is amply satisfied
that the proclamation warrants were duly executed
against the accused but period of 30 has not been
elapsed. Let notice to serving official be issued for
23.09.2024 and presence of accused shall be
awaited on the date fixed.”

2.4 On 24.09.2024, the following order was passed:-

DALBIR SINGH
2026.09.10 12.07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49343-2026 (O&M) [3]

“Report of Ahlmad seen that summons could not be
issued due to rush work.
Proclamation against accused was already received
effected. Today, ASI Gurjeet Singh, I/c Summon Staff
Barnala has come present and his statement has been
recorded, vide which, he submitted that proclamation in
the present case was marked to SC Iqbal Singh but today
he is absent from duty and as such, he has proved the
proclamation of accused Maninderjit Singh as Ex.Pl and
report dated 20.07.2024 on the same as Ex.P2. Repeated
call made since morning, but neither accused nor anyone
else has appeared on behalf of accused. The Court time is
likely to be over. Accordingly, accused Maninderjit Singh
is declared Proclaimed person. Necessary intimation be
sent to officer in charge of concerned police station to
make relevant entry in the relevant register.
Also, today, Sh. DP Sharma, Adv. for complainant
closed the evidence under Section 299 Cr.P.C., vide
statement.
In view of the above statement, the present case
stands consigned under Section 299 Cr.P.C. and the
same be taken up again as and when the accused
Maninderjit Singh surrenders or is apprehended by
police. File be consigned to the record room.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was erroneously declared a proclaimed person and the
procedure envisaged under Section 82 Cr.P.C., was not followed.
Learned counsel has referred to the interlocutory orders passed
during the course of trial. He further 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.
DALBIR SINGH
2026.09.10 12.07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49343-2026 (O&M) [4]

5. Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on
behalf of respondent No.1.
6. There would be no necessity of issuing notice to
respondent No.2-complainant, for, in view of the nature of the
order that is proposed to be passed, no prejudice would be
caused to him.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel the petitioner.
8. 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.
9. 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
DALBIR SINGH
2026.09.10 12.07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49343-2026 (O&M) [5]

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).”
10. 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
DALBIR SINGH
2026.09.10 12.07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49343-2026 (O&M) [6]

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
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
DALBIR SINGH
2026.09.10 12.07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49343-2026 (O&M) [7]

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 proclamation was published on such day.
(See Birad Dan v. State: 1958 CriLJ 965).
DALBIR SINGH
2026.09.10 12.07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49343-2026 (O&M) [8]

(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
another: 1994 CriLJ 1783 and Pal Singh v. The State:
1955 CriLJ 318.”
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Reverting to the facts of the case in hand, a perusal
of the interlocutory orders, which have been reproduced in the
preceding paragraphs, shows that the trial Court did not follow
the proper procedure. No doubt, the petitioner himself is also at
fault since after initially appearing before the trial Court on
24.03.2023, he, pursuant to bail having been granted, did not
furnish surety bonds and thereafter, he absented. However, trial
DALBIR SINGH
2026.09.10 12.07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49343-2026 (O&M) [9]

Court too invoked the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. without
recording its satisfaction.
14. Not only this, when the proclamation was effected,
the document (Annexure P.3), shows that it was issued on
28.06.2024 and the next date fixed was 26.07.2024, which was
less than 30 days. The executing official duly stated in his
statement dated 20.07.2024 (Annexure P.4) that he had
received the proclamation on 17.07.2024 and he had visited the
address and had pasted the copy.
15. The trial Court took note of the report dated
20.07.2024 on 24.09.2024. On 26.07.2024, the serving official
did not appear and, therefore, his statement was not recorded.
The Court while noticing that 30 days had not elapsed,
adjourned the same to 23.09.2024, which is also not in
accordance with law. Still further from 23.09.2024, the case
was adjourned to 24.09.2024 when the petitioner was declared a
proclaimed person.
16. It is, therefore, evident that the impugned order
dated 24.09.2024 is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside.
However, keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, costs of
Rs.25,000/- are imposed upon him, which shall be deposited
with the District Legal Services Authority, Barnala.
17. 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
2026.09.10 12.07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49343-2026 (O&M) [10]

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.
18. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above
terms.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
02.09.2026 JUDGE
ds
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No
DALBIR SINGH
2026.09.10 12.07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document