Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Proclaimed Person Declaration Where Accused Was Residing Abroad; Holds Mandatory Requirements of Section 82 CrPC Not Met
Case Name: Charanjeet Singh @ Dabbal v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 16 January 2026
Citation: CRM-M-73283-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an accused cannot be declared a proclaimed person unless there is strict compliance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that where the accused is admittedly residing abroad, and there is no material to establish wilful abscondence or deliberate evasion of process, proclamation proceedings initiated mechanically are liable to be quashed.
Summary: The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of the order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa, whereby the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person in FIR No.573 dated 31.10.2019 registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, along with all consequential proceedings.
The petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated and was earlier granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra on 04.08.2020. It was submitted that due to his residence abroad, he could not appear before the trial court on certain dates, pursuant to which bailable warrants were issued. The trial court itself recorded that the petitioner was residing outside India and had directed the SHO to ascertain his correct address.
Subsequently, on the basis of a police report stating that the petitioner had gone abroad, proclamation proceedings were initiated. The executing official reported affixation of proclamation at the petitioner’s residence and other places, and on 24.02.2023, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person.
The High Court found that the proclamation proceedings suffered from serious legal infirmities. It held that the statutory requirements of Section 82 CrPC, including public reading of the proclamation at a conspicuous place and satisfaction regarding intentional abscondence, were not complied with. The Court further held that mere residence abroad does not amount to absconding, particularly when no steps were taken to secure presence through permissible legal modes applicable to persons residing outside India.
The Court observed that the trial court failed to record a finding that the petitioner was deliberately avoiding appearance, and the proclamation order was passed in a routine manner without application of judicial mind.
Decision: The petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 24.02.2023 declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom were quashed. Liberty was reserved with the prosecution to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if so advised.