The High Court clarified that for a valid declaration as a proclaimed person under Section 84(2) of the BNSS (pari materia with Section 82(2) CrPC), all three prescribed modes of publication must be strictly followed in a conjunctive manner. The judgment upholds existing precedent and is binding on subordinate courts dealing with similar procedural challenges in proclamation matters, especially in criminal proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/39657/2025 of VARUN JAIN Vs M/S DHRUVA AND COMPANY |
| CNR | PHHC011141252025 |
| Date of Registration | 23-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure – Proclaimed Person Proceedings under BNSS/CrPC; Negotiable Instruments Act context |
| Questions of Law | Whether omission to follow all mandatory publication steps under Section 84(2) BNSS (Section 82(2) CrPC) vitiates proclamation |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that the procedure laid down in Section 84(2) BNSS (analogous to Section 82(2) CrPC) for declaring a person as proclaimed requires compliance with all three modes of publication:
These steps are conjunctive, not disjunctive; failure to strictly follow any one invalidates the proclamation order. The court found this requirement unsatisfied in the present case, leading to setting aside of the impugned order. Reliance was placed on Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State of W.B.: 1973 CriLJ 1368. The compromise between parties and withdrawal of the complaint were also noted. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Pawan Kumar Gupta v. The State of W.B.: 1973 CriLJ 1368 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Interpretation of Section 84(2) BNSS / Section 82(2) CrPC as imposing conjunctive publication requirements; failure to prove all three invalidates the procedure. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was declared proclaimed person in proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. Parties compromised, complaint dismissed as withdrawn. The procedure under Section 84(2) BNSS was not followed in full, particularly the public reading requirement. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and courts interpreting publication requirements under BNSS/CrPC |
| Follows | Pawan Kumar Gupta v. The State of W.B.: 1973 CriLJ 1368 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that all three publication requirements under Section 84(2) BNSS/Section 82(2) CrPC—public reading in the locality, affixation at the house/village/town, and affixation at the court-house—must be strictly and conjunctively complied with.
- Orders of proclamation passed without strict adherence to all three requirements are liable to be quashed.
- Expressly follows and applies the reasoning in Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State of W.B.: 1973 CriLJ 1368.
- Lawyers may rely on this judgment to challenge proclamation orders where police or process servers have failed to prove each mode of publication.
- The court’s reasoning clarifies application in matters arising under the Negotiable Instruments Act and analogous criminal proceedings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined Section 84(2) of BNSS, which is directly analogous to Section 82(2) CrPC, and quoted the mandatory sequence of publication steps.
- It was noted, based on the record and statement of serving police official, that one or more required steps (specifically, public reading at a conspicuous locality) had not been duly performed.
- The judgment cited and relied on Pawan Kumar Gupta v. The State of W.B., which held that all three limbs of publication are conjunctive; failure to prove compliance with even one step renders the proclamation invalid.
- Applying this jurisprudence, combined with the fact that the complaint itself had already been withdrawn upon compromise, the court allowed the petition and quashed the proclamation order and all related proceedings.
- The court emphasized the binding and procedural nature of compliance, rather than any disjunctive or discretionary application.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner was falsely implicated.
- The matter stood compromised and the complaint had been withdrawn.
- The proclamation procedure was not followed as prescribed by law.
Respondent
- Affirmed that a compromise had been effected and complaint withdrawn.
- Stated no objection if the petition was allowed.
Factual Background
The petitioner was declared a proclaimed person by the Judicial Magistrate in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Subsequently, the parties amicably settled the matter, leading to dismissal of the underlying complaint as withdrawn. The petitioner challenged the proclamation order, citing non-compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 84(2) BNSS, specifically the failure to publicly read the proclamation as mandated.
Statutory Analysis
The court analyzed Section 84(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which sets forth the procedure for publication of a proclamation for persons absconding. The provision mandates:
- Public reading of the proclamation in a conspicuous place in the town or village where the accused resides
- Affixation to a conspicuous part of the house/homestead or locality
- Affixation to a conspicuous part of the courthouse
The court held these requirements to be conjunctive, and failure in any element vitiates the legal validity of the proclamation process.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows and affirms the established law as laid down in Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State of W.B.: 1973 CriLJ 1368 regarding conjunctive requirements for publication in proclamation proceedings.