Karan Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Another
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M-58965-2026 (O&M)
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
139
CRM-M-58965-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 05.11.2026
KARAN KUMAR ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. Nitin Rampal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)
1. Present petition has been instituted under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023
for quashing the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 (Annexure P-8), whereby the
petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person by learned Judicial Magistrate
Rattan Anmol Vs.
First Class, Patiala in complaint No.COMA-2061-2020 titled “
Karan Kumar
” filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
and directions have been issued for initiation of proceedings under Section 174-A
IPC.
2.
Notice of motion. Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG Punjab accepts notice
on behalf of the respondent-State. Both the parties have been heard and material
on file has been perused.
3. A perusal of the record shows that after the petitioner was summoned
to face the trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 but the
summons could not be served upon the petitioner-accused, as the address
furnished by the complainant was not correct and despite numerous opportunities,
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.11.11 19:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
CRM-M-58965-2026 (O&M)
- 2 -
the complainant failed to furnish his correct address. Thereafter, notice was
ordered to be issued to him through publication in a newspaper namely Azad Soch
for 17.10.2022 but the publication was again effected at the same address where
petitioner was not residing and the same thus would not have served any purpose.
Vide order dated 17.10.2022, when the publication in the newspaper was effected,
it was ordered that proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C be issued for
07.12.2022. However, no satisfaction has been recorded by the Magistrate to the
effect that the accused has either absconded or has concealed himself to avoid the
process issued by the Court and his presence cannot be secured in the ordinary
manner and recording of such a satisfaction was sine qua non for initiating the
proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. A grave procedural error thus has been
committed by the learned Magistrate while initiating the proceedings under
Section 82 Cr.P.C.
4. The matter does not rest here, the proclamation was issued for
07.12.2022 vide order dated 17.10.2022, following order was passed:-
Publication of accused received back duly executed on 14.09.2022.
Period of 30 days has already been elapsed but the accused did not
come present. Still in the interest of justice service of accused be also
effected through proclamation U/s 82 Cr.P.C. for 07.12.2022. The
serving constable is directed to get the service of accused through
proclamation effected within time.
5. On the adjourned date, proclamation was received back duly effected
and statement of serving Constable was recorded, according to which the
proclamation had been effected by him on 02.12.2022. The trial Magistrate
observed that period of 30 days has not lapsed and adjourned the case to
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.11.11 19:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
CRM-M-58965-2026 (O&M)
- 3 -
03.01.2023 for awaiting presence of accused, by passing the following order:-
Proclamation of accused received back duly effected. Statement of
serving constable recorded that he has effected the proclamation on
02.12.2022. Period of 30 days not elapsed yet. Now for awaiting
presence of accused, hearing of the present case is adjourned to
03.01.2023.
6. On 03.01.2023, petitioner was declared a proclaimed person.
However, no proclamation had been issued against the petitioner for 03.01.2023,
which could enable him to know about the date fixed for his appearance and once
the proclamation issued for 07.12.2022 had not been effected 30 days prior to the
date fixed for his appearance, the trial Magistrate should have issued fresh
proclamation giving a minimum of 30 days to the accused to appear in the Court
and grave illegality thus has been committed while declaring the petitioner a
proclaimed person. In holding so, I have relied upon the decision of a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in CRM-M-47603-2025 titled Ajay Kumar v. State of UT
Chandigarh (decided vide judgment dated 04.09.2025) and CRM-M-69370-2025
titled Narender Kumar v. State of Haryana (decided vide judgment dated
09.12.2025) in which it has been held that failure to provide 30 clear days between
publication and the date fixed for appearance is a fatal jurisdictional infirmity that
vitiates the proclamation proceedings.
7. There is yet another procedural infirmity in the proclamation
proceedings. A perusal of the execution report of the proclamation dated
02.12.2022 (Annexure P-6A) shows that the serving official has reported that one
copy of the proclamation was affixed at the door of the house of the accused,
another copy was affixed at a conspicuous public place visited by the general
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.11.11 19:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
CRM-M-58965-2026 (O&M)
- 4 -
public and one copy was affixed on the notice board of the Court. However, the
execution report does not disclose that the proclamation was publicly read at some
conspicuous place of the town or village, as mandatorily required under Section
82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in 2022(1) Law Herald 219
titled Rahul Dureja and another v. State of Punjab has held that public reading
of the proclamation in a conspicuous place of the town/village is mandatory, and
its omission renders the proclamation notice and all subsequent proceedings a
complete nullity. The same principle has been consistently followed in 2021(1)
RCR (Criminal) 493 Harvinder Singh v. State of Haryana , 2024(1) Law Herald
859 Mahender Kumar v. HDFC Ltd ., 2024(1) Law Herald 291 ( Ramandeep
Singh Sangha v. State of Punjab ), and 2024(2) RCR (Criminal) 5 ( Sukhjinder
Singh v. State of Punjab ). Thus, the execution report placed on record does not
establish compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 82(2)(i)(a)
Cr.P.C.
8. As a result of the afore-said discussion, the present petition is
accepted and the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 (Annexure P-8) , vide which,
the petitioner was declared proclaimed person is set aside. However, the petitioner
shall surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of 30 days from
today and the learned Trial Court shall admit him to bail and proceed with the trial
in accordance with law.
9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
05.11.2026 JUDGE
amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.11.11 19:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment