Absence of Judicial Satisfaction Renders Declaration Under Section 82 CrPC Illegal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PO Order

"Proclamation Without Due Process Vitiates Entire Proceedings", In a significant pronouncement on January 12, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court emphatically reiterated that no person can be declared a proclaimed offender or proclaimed person without strict and meticulous compliance of the mandatory requirements under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court, presided over by Justice Sumeet Goel, quashed the order of proclamation dated October 24, 2025, passed against the petitioner Harwinder Singh by the Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, holding that the impugned order was legally unsustainable and suffered from a fatal procedural lapse.

The Court was dealing with a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC), filed by Harwinder Singh for quashing the order declaring him a proclaimed person in relation to FIR No.30 dated 23.03.2023 registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professional (Regulation) Act, 2014.

Mechanical Proclamations Without Satisfaction of Absconding Deprecated

The mainstay of the Court’s reasoning rested on the mandatory nature of Section 82 CrPC and the non-negotiable requirement for the court to record its "satisfaction" that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself to evade arrest. Justice Goel observed:

"The Court below has committed illegality by issuing the said proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 without compliance of mandatory requirements of law... The learned Court below, while declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person, failed to satisfy itself regarding due execution of proclamation and proceeded in a mechanical manner."

Noting the humanitarian reasons cited by the petitioner — including the serious illness and subsequent demise of his co-accused sister — the Court further emphasized that these circumstances were not adequately appreciated by the trial court. Despite being granted regular bail on August 25, 2023, and having attended the trial regularly, Harwinder Singh’s failure to appear on one occasion was treated with undue harshness, ignoring the context.

Section 82 CrPC – Procedural Safeguards Are Not Optional

Justice Goel’s judgment provides a detailed reiteration of the safeguards embedded in Section 82 CrPC. He noted that the issuance of a proclamation is not a matter of routine, and the following requirements must be scrupulously met:

1. Prior issuance of a non-bailable warrant.
2. Judicial satisfaction that the accused is absconding or hiding.
3. Mandatory publication norms, including affixation at specific locations.
4. A clear thirty-day notice period before declaring the person as proclaimed.
5. Statement in writing by the court confirming publication in accordance with the law.

In this case, the proclamation order did not even specify the date and time for appearance, which, as per the Court, "cannot be cured as a mere irregularity and renders the proclamation and subsequent proceedings a nullity."

"The Law Must Not Be Invoked in a Casual and Cavalier Manner"

The Court relied upon precedent including Sonu v. State of Haryana, Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi, and Devender Singh Negi v. State of U.P., to highlight the serious ramifications of issuing a proclamation order. These judgments underscore that courts must exercise judicial discretion and not act mechanically on police reports or procedural defaults.

The High Court further cautioned:

"The provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure having serious ramifications qua the right of the accused concerning his presence in the criminal trial proceedings ought not be and cannot be invoked in casual and cavalier manner."

It was also noted that "the requirement of recording of satisfaction...is to be scrupulously complied with based on relevant material available on record", which was evidently lacking in this case.

Inherent Jurisdiction Properly Invoked To Prevent Abuse of Process

Observing that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would be futile and an abuse of process, Justice Goel invoked inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (akin to Section 482 CrPC) to quash the impugned proclamation and all consequential proceedings arising from the FIR. The Court held:

“No useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner... it is, therefore, an appropriate case for the exercise of powers under Section 528 of BNSS/Section 482 of Cr. P.C.”

The ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting individual liberty and procedural fairness, particularly in criminal law where the liberty of the accused is at stake. It sends a clear signal to trial courts that declarations under Section 82 CrPC cannot be issued as a formality or punishment for mere non-appearance, especially without satisfaction of statutory conditions.

The decision also reinforces the role of High Courts in using inherent jurisdiction to correct procedural abuse and prevent miscarriage of justice.

Date of Decision: January 12, 2026