Amarvir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another

CRM-M-16176-2026 (O&M)

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
240
CRM-M-16176-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 11.11.2026
AMARVIR SINGH ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. Dinesh Maurya, Advocate for
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab.
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)
1. Present petition has been instituted under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023 for quashing the impugned order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala (Annexure P-4), vide which the petitioner
has been declared a proclaimed person in FIR No.36 dated 10.03.2024, under
Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, 1860 (Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS, 2023)
registered at Police Station Anaj Mandi, District Patiala.
2. Notice of motion. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, 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 petitioner had not been arrested
during the investigation of the case after registration of FIR. On 06.06.2025, an
application was moved by the prosecution for securing his presence by issuing
non-bailable warrants which was allowed and his arrest warrant was ordered to be
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.11.13 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CRM-M-16176-2026 (O&M)

- 2 -

issued for 13.06.2025 on which date arrest warrant was not received back and
fresh arrest warrant was ordered to be issued for 05.07.2025. On 05.07.2025,
arrest warrant was received back unexecuted with the report that accused was not
found in his house and his whereabouts are not known. The Trial Court observed
that accused has the knowledge of the proceedings and he is intentionally
concealing himself and his presence cannot be procured through ordinary manner
and ordered issuance of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C for 20.08.2025.
However on 20.08.2025, the Presiding Officer was away for some refresher course
and case was adjourned to 21.08.2025. On 21.08.2025, it was observed that
proclamation has not been received back and fresh proclamation was ordered to be
issued for 30.09.2025 and the serving constable was directed to appear before the
Court on 29.08.2025 for making his statement regarding effecting of
proclamation. On 29.08.2025, the serving official appeared and made the
following statement:-
It is submitted that for compliance of proclamation, the residence of
Amarvir Singh @ Aman son of Satnam Singh resident of House
No.11, Ekta Nagar Near DMW Workshop, Patiala was visited and
house was found locked. One copy of the proclamation was affixed on
nd
the main gate of the house of the accused and 2 copy was affixed at
rd
Dharamshala of Ektanagar and 3 copy was affixed on the notice
board of the Hon’ble Court. The proclamation after compliance is
submitted before the Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
4. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 30.09.2025, on which date the
petitioner was declared proclaimed person. However, perusal of the various orders
shows that correct address of the petitioner was not known to the police and even
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.11.13 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CRM-M-16176-2026 (O&M)

- 3 -

after his arrest warrants were issued, it was reported that he was not available in
the house and his whereabouts are not known. In such an eventuality, the prosecution
should have been directed to furnish his fresh address instead of straightaway
declaring him a proclaimed person. Besides this, the arrest warrant had been issued
only on two dates which also could not be served and the satisfaction recorded by the
trial Magistrate that accused has absconded or is concealing himself to avoid the
warrants and his presence cannot be secured in ordinary manner is thus not supported
by any cogent reasons or material. A Coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding
CRM-M-41656-2023 titled Pardeep Kumar v. State of Haryana vide judgment dated
23.08.2023 has held that before issuing proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the
Court must deliberate on its previous efforts to secure presence through legally
permissible means and record specific satisfaction that the accused is intentionally
concealing himself. 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. As such, the
proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C have been initiated in a hurried manner without
making sincere efforts to secure the presence of the petitioner.
5. Besides this, the proclamation was issued for 30.09.2025 and
publication was effected on 29.08.2025. A perusal of the statement of the executing
official, reproduced hereinabove, shows that one copy of the proclamation was
affixed on the main gate of the house of the petitioner, which was found locked, the
second copy was affixed at the Dharamshala of Ektanagar and the third copy was

affixed on the notice board of the Court. However, the same has not been publicaly
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.11.13 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CRM-M-16176-2026 (O&M)

- 4 -

read in a conspicuous place of the town/village, where the accused ordinarily resided.
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 ).
6. As a result of the afore-said discussion, I am of the considered opinion
that the trial Court has not followed the proper procedure as mandated under Section
82 Cr.P.C while initiating the proceedings and while declaring the petitioner a
proclaimed person and the impugned order dated 30.09.2025 is thus liable to be set
aside. Accordingly, the petition is accepted and the impugned order dated
30.09.2025, vide which, the petitioner was declared proclaimed person is set aside.
7. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
11.11.2026 JUDGE
amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.11.13 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment