Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Proclaimed Person Proceedings for Non-Compliance with Section 82 CrPC; Holds Mechanical Declaration Illegal

Case Name: Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 9 January 2026

Citation: CRM-M-70140-2025

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition and quashed the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person, holding that the mandatory requirements of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not complied with. The Court held that proclamation proceedings having serious consequences on the liberty of an accused cannot be undertaken in a mechanical manner and must strictly adhere to statutory safeguards, including recording of judicial satisfaction and proper publication of proclamation.

Summary: The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the order dated 23 April 2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Assandh, whereby he was declared a proclaimed person in a case arising out of FIR No.1001 dated 11 December 2018. The FIR was registered under Sections 341, 384, 451, 506 and 427 IPC, Section 4 of the Essential Service Maintenance Act and Section 5 of the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1950.

The petitioner contended that the proclamation proceedings were vitiated as the mandatory requirement of a minimum 30-day period from the date of publication to the date fixed for appearance was not complied with. It was further argued that the proclamation was not publicly read at a conspicuous place in the village or town of residence and that the Magistrate failed to record satisfaction regarding the petitioner having absconded or deliberately concealed himself to evade arrest.

The State opposed the petition, asserting that repeated summons and warrants had remained unexecuted and that the petitioner was deliberately avoiding the process of law. It was contended that the Magistrate had followed due procedure under Section 82 CrPC.

The High Court examined the record and found that the executing constable’s statement itself showed that the proclamation was not publicly read in a conspicuous place, as required by Section 82(2) CrPC. The Court further found that the Magistrate had failed to record a clear satisfaction that the petitioner was absconding or concealing himself, which is a foundational requirement before invoking proclamation proceedings.

Relying on settled precedent, including Sonu v. State of Haryana, the Court reiterated that compliance with Section 82 CrPC is mandatory and any deviation renders the proclamation and subsequent proceedings void. The Court emphasised that proclamation proceedings have serious civil and criminal consequences and cannot be sustained where statutory safeguards are ignored.

Decision: The petition was allowed. The impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person was quashed. All consequential proceedings arising out of FIR No.1001 were also set aside.