BIKRAMJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 528 read with Sec. 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of order dtd. 9/1/2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Batala, District Gurdaspur, in case bearing No. COMI/25/2016 titled as 'Harpal Singh Versus Saudagar Singh and others' vide which the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was summoned vide order dtd. 26/9/2019 and notice was issued to him on the address given in the complaint but no notice was served upon the petitioner and the petitioner was completely unaware of the proceedings commenced before the learned trial Court which led to nonappearance of the petitioner. It is evident from the orders dtd. 1/9/2021 to 5/8/2022 that notice issued to the petitioner was never executed as the petitioner is residing abroad since 16/3/2016 and vide order dtd. 14/10/2022, non-bailable warrants were issued against him. On 21/11/2022, the trial Court issued proclamation under Sec. 82 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and on 9/1/2023 (Annexure P-1), the trial Court declared the petitioner as proclaimed person. Aggrieved by the said impugned order dtd. 9/1/2023 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the nonbailable warrants issued to the petitioner were never served and, therefore, the finding of the trial Court that the petitioner is intentionally evading his arrest, is erroneous. Further, the trial Court vide order dtd. 21/11/2022 observed that since non-bailable warrants have not been executed till date, he cannot be served through ordinary process and issued proclamation under Sec. 82 Cr.P.C.. Ultimately, vide impugned order dtd. 9/1/2023 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person. It is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the mandate of Sec. 82 of Cr.P.C. has not been followed in its letter and spirit by the trial Court.