The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that the requirements of Section 82(2) CrPC must be mandatorily and cumulatively fulfilled before declaring a person a proclaimed offender, clarifying that absence must not automatically be treated as “wilful” or “deliberate” if justified. The judgment follows and applies existing precedent and serves as binding authority within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/48854/2025 of RAM CHANDER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC011397712025 |
| Date of Registration | 30-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms: Gurbir Singh Mundi vs. State of Punjab and another CRM-M-49283-2021 (16.12.2021) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure – Proclaimed Offender Proceedings |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that the procedure mandated by Section 82(2) CrPC must be strictly and cumulatively complied with before an order declaring a person as a proclaimed offender is valid. Mere absence does not equate to wilful evasion if reasonable or medical grounds exist. The purpose of proclamation proceedings is to secure the presence of the accused, not to punish justified absence. If the accused expresses willingness to surrender and shows bona fide reasons for absence, the court may set aside the proclamation order on suitable terms. This approach aligns with the precedent in Gurbir Singh Mundi’s case. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Gurbir Singh Mundi vs. State of Punjab and another CRM-M-49283-2021, decided on 16.12.2021 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Emphasized the cumulative and mandatory nature of procedural safeguards under Section 82(2) CrPC; Referenced the requirement that public reading of the proclamation at a conspicuous place is essential. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India |
| Follows | Gurbir Singh Mundi vs. State of Punjab and another CRM-M-49283-2021 (16.12.2021) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that compliance with Section 82(2) CrPC is mandatory and cumulative, not alternative.
- Absence due to medical or justifiable reasons cannot be construed as deliberate evasion.
- Courts may grant an opportunity to surrender and join proceedings if bona fide absence is established.
- The proclamation order can be challenged and set aside where Section 82(2) is not strictly observed.
- Lawyers may rely on this authority to contest improper “proclaimed person” declarations for clients where procedural lapses are alleged.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court reiterated that the objective of proclamation proceedings is to secure the presence of the accused, not to automatically label absence as deliberate or wilful.
- Cited and relied upon Gurbir Singh Mundi, in which it was held that the procedures under Section 82(2) CrPC must be mandatorily and cumulatively followed (especially the public reading of the order at the accused’s ordinary residence).
- Examined the facts and found credible justification for the petitioner’s absence, including medical grounds and lack of actual notice.
- Decided that readiness to surrender and join proceedings warranted the setting aside of the proclamation order, subject to conditions (such as appearance by a specified date and payment of costs).
- Clarified that failure to comply with these directions would result in deemed dismissal of the petition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Did not receive any notice, bailable, or non-bailable warrant from the trial court.
- Absence was not wilful; was posted at another location, and suffered severe medical conditions (brain surgery, heart ailment).
- Proper procedure under Section 82 CrPC not followed, especially the knowledge/notice requirement.
- Ready and willing to surrender and join proceedings if given an opportunity.
- Relied on precedent in Gurbir Singh Mundi.
State
- Petitioner was rightly declared proclaimed person due to absence.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from proceedings under Section 138 and 142 of the NI Act in a complaint titled as Om Parkash vs. Ram Chander. The petitioner was declared a proclaimed person by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar, after arrest warrants were returned unexecuted, as the house was found locked. Petitioner asserted he was posted at Fazilka and did not wilfully evade proceedings, also citing serious medical issues. He moved the High Court seeking quashing of the proclamation order, expressing readiness to surrender.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment discusses Section 82 of CrPC, highlighting the necessity for its sub-section (2) procedures to be strictly and cumulatively complied with before declaring anyone a proclaimed person.
- Section 82(2) requires public reading of the declaration at a conspicuous place in the town/village of the accused’s ordinary residence.
- The interpretation given is strict and mandates no alternative compliance.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Court imposed conditional setting aside of the impugned order, requiring surrender by a specified date and payment of costs.
- Required an affidavit/undertaking for future appearance and prohibited travel abroad without court’s permission.
- Ordered petition deemed dismissed if conditions not fulfilled.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- Gurbir Singh Mundi vs. State of Punjab and another CRM-M-49283-2021 (decided on 16.12.2021)