RAHUL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition under Sec. 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed, seeking the quashing of order dtd. 16/9/2023 P 1), passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Roh (Annexure P-1), htak in case ensuing from FIR No.397 dtd. 18/11/2022, registered at Police Station Old Sabzi Mandi, Rohtak, under S Sec. on 365 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the petitioner was declared Proclaimed Person. Further, quashing of FIR No.36 dtd. 30/1/2024 registered at Police Station Old Sabzi Mandi under Sec. 174-A A of the Indian Penal Code (Annexure P P--2), registered in pursuance of the above-mentioned mentioned order dtd. 16/9/2023 is also prayed for.

(2.) It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the order dtd. 16/9/2023 declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person has been passed in utter violation of the statutory requirements requirements as enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that since the learned Judicial Magistrate failed to adhere to the mandatory requirements, germane to procedure required to be followed before issuing proclamation against the petitio petitioner, ner, the illegality committed in issuing proclamation against the petitioner goes to the root of the case, and is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Opposing the case of the petitioner petitioner, the learned earned counsel for the respondent espondent-State has submitted that the impugned order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person has rightly been passed and it does not suffer from any legal defect. It is submitted that the contents of impugned order demonstrate that the learned Magistrate has considered all the relevant aspects of the case before ordering issuance of proclamation against the petitioner to secure his presence in the case. It is further submitted that in view of the petitioner having been been declared proclaimed person by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the offence under Sec. 174-A A of the Indian Penal Code, automatically is made out against the petitioner, and as such the FIR No.36 dtd. 30/1/2024 is rightly registered against the peti petitioner.