PAVITRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pavitra, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Code Criminal Procedure for quashing of orders dated 13.9.2008 (Annexure P5), dated 18.10.2008 (Annexure P7) and dated 12.12.2008 (Annexure P9) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tohana District Fatehabad whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender in a case registered by way of FIR No.77 dated 22.4.2008 at Police Station Sadar, Tohana for an offence punishable under sections 285, 379, 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 25 of Arms Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to Annexure P8, a copy of proclamation issued under section 82 Code Criminal Procedure against the petitioner. According to him, as per the document, the petitioner is shown to be a resident of House No. 73-A, Model Town Fatehabad. He then drew my attention to the report made thereon by EHC Kuldip Singh, who has mentioned that enquiry was made for Pavitra, a resident of House no. 73, Model Town, Fatehabad and he was told by Jagir Singh, Municipal Councilor, Ward No. 10 and Surjit Singh that he occasionally comes to the place and they did not know about him. As per the report, a copy of the proclamation was affixed at a public place as well as in front of the court and one copy on the house of Pavitra. According to him, when the house of the petitioner bears No. 73-A, affixation of proclamation at house No. 73, would be of no help. He has further submitted that the report is false inasmuch as there is no Municipal Councilor elected in Ward No. 10 in the years 2005 or 2010. He drew attention of this court to Annexure P12 which is the list of Municipal Councilors of Municipal Corporation, Fatehabad during the tenures from 2005 - 2010 and 2010-2015. According to him, in Ward No. 10, Virender Narang is shown as Municipal Councilor. He has further submitted that this fact was clearly mentioned in para No. 5(iii) of the petition and the State in its reply has not denied this fact. He has further submitted that even the reports on warrant of arrest (Annexure P6) are inconsistent and not making any sense. According to him, the reports are inconsistent because on the one hand, it is mentioned therein that the maker thereof did not know anything about Pavitra and on the other hand, they mention that he is not coming to his house since long or he occasionally comes to his house. He has further submitted that in these circumstances, the petitioner was never served nor the publication was properly published and, therefore, the order declaring him proclaimed offender, Annexure P9, is liable to be set-aside.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that taking the matter from another angle, the petitioner could only be taken as a proclaimed person but not as a proclaimed offender because under section 82(4) Crimial P.C., the sections under which the case against the petitioner has been registered are not mentioned.