Proclamation under Section 82 CrPC must provide a clear notice period of not less than 30 days from the date of publication, and the court must record satisfaction that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself. Non-compliance vitiates proceedings. The High Court applies and clarifies established principles, which subordinate courts must follow; the judgment quashes proceedings initiated without strict adherence to these requirements.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/18022/2025 of SURJIT KUMAR Vs M/S MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. |
| CNR | PHHC010514172025 |
| Date of Registration | 29-03-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms established Supreme Court and High Court precedent (i.e., Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, Sonu v. State of Haryana, etc.) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC is vitiated if the mandatory 30-day notice period or satisfaction of absconding is absent in the proclamation order. |
| Ratio Decidendi | Mandatory compliance with Section 82 CrPC, 1973, is essential before declaring any person as a proclaimed offender or person. The Court must be satisfied from the record that the accused is absconding or concealing himself. The proclamation order must provide a notice period of not less than thirty days from the date of its publication. Any defect, including a shorter notice period or lack of satisfaction, cannot be cured by mere adjournments or subsequent orders; such orders and proceedings are void. Reliance placed on Supreme Court ruling in Ashok Kumar and relevant High Court decisions. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Provisions are mandatory in nature with serious ramifications on the liberty of the accused; non-compliance vitiates the proceedings in entirety. The defect is not curable by subsequent adjournments; the order must strictly comply with statutory requirements at the time of issuance. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Proclamation was issued declaring petitioner a proclaimed person in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Summons and warrants were not served, and there was no finding of absconding. The proclamation specified a date for appearance less than 30 days from publication, and no fresh proclamation was issued; instead, the case was merely adjourned. Petitioner challenged the order as contrary to law. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially in analogous cases of defective Section 82 CrPC proclamations |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment provides a clear reiteration that the 30-day notice period under Section 82 CrPC is not a mere formality but is mandatory; any breach is fatal.
- Courts cannot cure the defect in a proclamation by granting adjournments instead of issuing a fresh proclamation with proper notice.
- Before issuing a proclamation, the court must record satisfaction that the accused is genuinely absconding or has concealed himself so that a previously issued warrant cannot be executed.
- Lawyers may rely on this authority to challenge proceedings where the proclamation was not published in accordance with Section 82.
- The summary of authorities consolidates the mandatory steps — including distinct requirements for service, waiting period, and notice — and emphasizes that all conjunctive procedures must be followed.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first examined whether the procedural requirements of Section 82 CrPC, 1973, were followed by the Magistrate before declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person.
- It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, which holds that the proclamation itself must provide a clear notice period of no less than 30 days from publication, and this cannot be rectified by adjournments.
- The Court referred to principles established in Sonu v. State of Haryana and other coordinate bench decisions, summarizing that:
- a prior arrest warrant is essential;
- there must be a report of absconding or concealment;
- the court must record its satisfaction as to absconding;
- the time given for appearance must not be less than 30 days from publication;
- all publication modes under Section 82(2) are conjunctive and must be strictly followed.
- The High Court examined the magistrate’s record and found neither satisfaction of absconding/concealment nor compliance with the mandatory 30-day period, as well as other procedural deficiencies.
- The judgment declared these errors to be incurable and fatal to the proceedings, vitiating the entire process under Section 82 CrPC.
- The Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order and all subsequent proceedings.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The impugned order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person is illegal and unsustainable in law as the mandatory procedure under Section 82 CrPC was not adhered to.
- Ordinary summons were never served, yet bail warrants were issued, which remained unserved; despite this, non-bailable warrants were issued and subsequently received unserved.
- The proclamation was issued for a date less than 30 days from publication, violating Section 82.
- No finding was recorded by the court below that the petitioner was absconding or concealing himself.
- Instead of issuing a fresh proper proclamation, the court below merely adjourned the matter to complete the 30-day period, which is not sanctioned by law.
- Reliance placed on Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana to argue that these defects are not curable by adjournment or subsequent proceedings.
Respondent No. 1
- The petition is misconceived and devoid of merits.
- The impugned order was passed rightly following due process of law under Section 82 CrPC.
- The petitioner, despite repeated opportunities, willfully avoided appearance before the court.
- Ordinary summons, bailable, and non-bailable warrants were all issued on multiple occasions, but the petitioner failed to cooperate with the proceedings.
- The proclamation issued was duly published and affixed as required by law, and reasonable opportunity was granted to the petitioner.
- The trial court meticulously adhered to the Section 82 procedure, and the record shows no infirmity or irregularity.
- The petitioner’s conduct establishes deliberate defiance of judicial process; therefore, the petition should be dismissed.
Respondent No. 2
No appearance.
Factual Background
A criminal complaint was filed against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chandigarh, issued summons, bailable warrants, and non-bailable warrants, all of which were returned unserved and without any finding of absconding or concealment. The court nevertheless issued a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC, setting an appearance date less than 30 days from publication and, rather than issuing a fresh proclamation, simply adjourned the proceedings. The petitioner challenged this process as contrary to settled law.
Statutory Analysis
Section 82 CrPC (Proclamation for person absconding):
The Court analyzed the following key statutory requirements:
- Prior issuance of warrant of arrest is sine qua non.
- The court must have reason to believe that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself so the warrant cannot be executed.
- The proclamation must specify a date for appearance not less than 30 days from the date of publication.
- Modes of publication under Section 82(2) are conjunctive and mandatory.
- Any declaration of an accused as a proclaimed person/offender in violation of these steps is procedurally defective and void.
The Court read the provision strictly as mandatory and not directory.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were introduced; the judgment strictly reaffirms and applies settled law.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The High Court followed and clarified existing Supreme Court and High Court precedents, reaffirming mandatory compliance with Section 82 CrPC.