Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Proclaimed Offender Declaration for Non-Compliance with Section 82 CrPC; Holds Fresh Proclamation Mandatory After Adjournment

Case Name: Tek Chand v. State of Punjab and Another

Date of Judgment: 16 January 2026

Citation: CRM-M-69320-2025

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an accused cannot be declared a proclaimed offender unless the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is strictly complied with. The Court held that where the statutory period of 30 days had not elapsed and no fresh proclamation was issued after adjournment of the case, the order declaring the accused as a proclaimed offender is illegal and unsustainable.

Summary: The petition was filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the order dated 28.10.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, whereby the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender in FIR No.23 dated 27.04.2016 registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Behram.

The petitioner contended that the proclamation proceedings were initiated without following the mandatory safeguards under Section 82 CrPC. It was argued that non-bailable warrants were issued on 04.07.2016, but when the matter came up on 06.10.2016, the trial court itself recorded that the statutory period of 30 days from the date of publication of proclamation had not elapsed and adjourned the matter to 28.10.2016. However, no fresh proclamation was issued intimating the adjourned date, which was mandatory in law. It was further submitted that the petitioner was residing abroad, no effort was made to effect service through the procedure prescribed for persons residing outside India, and there was no finding that the petitioner was deliberately absconding or concealing himself.

The State opposed the petition, contending that summons had been served through the petitioner’s mother and that the trial court had followed due procedure before declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender.

The High Court examined the record and held that compliance with Section 82 CrPC is mandatory and not directory. The Court noted that there was no judicial satisfaction recorded that the petitioner was absconding or concealing himself so as to evade execution of warrants. The Court further held that once the case was adjourned after issuance of proclamation, issuance of a fresh proclamation specifying the adjourned date was mandatory. Failure to do so vitiated the subsequent declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed offender.

Relying on settled precedent, including Sonu v. State of Haryana, the Court held that non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 82 CrPC renders the entire proclamation proceedings void.

Decision: The petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 28.10.2016 declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom were quashed. The Court clarified that the prosecution would be at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.