LAWS(P&H)-2025-12-215

HARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On December 10, 2025
HARJIT SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of order dtd. 6/8/2016 (Annexure P-6) vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender in case bearing FIR No.252, dtd. 20/8/2015, under Ss. 406, 420 IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station City Khanna, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana, Punjab. Further prayer has been made for staying the further proceedings arising out of FIR during the pendency of the present petition.

(2.) It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely prosecuted in case bearing FIR No.252, dtd. 20/8/2015, under Ss. 406, 420 IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station City Khanna, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana, Punjab. He has submitted that neither the petitioner was aware about the proceedings of the FIR nor regarding the order declaring him proclaimed offender vide order dtd. 6/8/2016. He has submitted that the petitioner applied for certified copy of the order dtd. 6/8/2016, declaring him as proclaimed offender, but he could not get the same because the said order was not on the judicial file. He has submitted that thereafter, the parties have amicably resolved their inter se dispute and on account of the same, the petitioner filed a petition bearing CRM-M-47328-2025 before this Court for quashing of the present FIR on the basis of compromise, which is pending adjudication for 12/12/2025. This Court vide order dtd. 28/8/2025 sought a report from the learned trial Court concerned regarding the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender and thus, vide order dtd. 30/9/2025, the report from the trial Court has been received and the order dtd. 6/8/2016 has also been attached with the same. He has submitted that the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender is in violation of the provisions of Sec. 82 of Cr.P.C. He has submitted that the petitioner was never issued the summons nor any notice was ever served to him. He has submitted that the petitioner is keen to join the proceedings. He has thus submitted that the petitioner be granted protection for appearing before the learned trial Court.

(3.) Notice of motion.