Strict Compliance of Section 82 Mandatory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Proclaimed Person Order
Case Name: Avtar Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 10 April 2026
Citation: CRM-M No. 9803 of 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: Declaration of an accused as a proclaimed person requires strict compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. Any deviation, including failure to grant 30 days’ notice, absence of judicial satisfaction regarding absconding, or procedural lapses, vitiates the entire proceedings.
Summary: The petitioner challenged the order dated 18.12.2025 whereby he was declared a proclaimed person in a complaint case. The challenge was primarily on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C.
The petitioner contended that he was not properly served due to incorrect address and was, in fact, in judicial custody in another case during the relevant period. It was further argued that the statutory requirement of granting a minimum 30-day period from the date of publication of proclamation was not complied with, and no fresh proclamation was issued after adjournment.
The State opposed the petition, asserting that due procedure had been followed and that the petitioner failed to appear despite service of summons and warrants.
The High Court examined the record and reiterated that provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. are mandatory and must be strictly adhered to. It noted that the trial Court failed to record satisfaction that the petitioner was absconding or deliberately avoiding arrest. Additionally, the requirement of providing a clear 30-day period for appearance was not fulfilled.
The Court also observed that the petitioner was already in custody at the time of issuance of proclamation, which further undermined the basis for declaring him a proclaimed person.
Decision: The High Court held that the impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person was passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. The Court found that there was no proper satisfaction recorded regarding absconding, the statutory notice period was not complied with, and the procedural safeguards were ignored. The fact that the petitioner was already in custody further vitiated the proceedings. Holding that such non-compliance strikes at the root of the matter, the Court exercised its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and quashed the impugned order along with all consequential proceedings.