Declaration of Proclaimed Offender Cannot Be a Mechanical Exercise: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Proceedings

“No Man Can Be Declared Proclaimed Unless Court Applies Its Mind to the Accusation of Absconding”— In a strongly worded and procedurally vital judgment Punjab and Haryana High Court came down heavily on the mechanical and unlawful manner in which a proclamation order was passed under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, by the Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, without fulfilling the mandatory statutory safeguards.

Justice Sumeet Goel termed the trial court’s proclamation order as “ex facie illegal” and “in clear breach of the mandatory provisions under Section 82(1) of CrPC,” ruling that such procedural non-compliance vitiates the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom. The order dated 01.10.2022, which declared the petitioner a proclaimed offender, was accordingly quashed along with all consequential actions, holding that “no person can be declared a proclaimed offender without strict adherence to the procedural mandate of law.”

“Failure to Allow 30-Day Notice, No Proof of Absconding—Court’s Order Declaring Petitioner Proclaimed Offender Is Void”

The petitioner, Sardool Masih, had moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the proclamation proceedings initiated against him in FIR No. 62 dated 27.08.2017, registered under Sections 323, 341, 506, 427, 148, and 149 IPC at Police Station Kahnuwan, District Gurdaspur. The trial court had declared him a proclaimed offender on the basis of a claim that he had failed to appear, but the High Court found that no legal prerequisites were fulfilled before issuing such a serious declaration.

While allowing the petition, Justice Goel observed that “the learned Court below, while declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender, failed to satisfy itself regarding due execution of proclamation and proceeded in a mechanical manner.” He noted that the written proclamation did not grant the minimum 30-day notice period, and there was no material before the court to suggest that the petitioner was absconding or concealing himself.

The Court emphasized that “the requirement of recording satisfaction that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself... is to be scrupulously complied with. Non-adherence to said requirement vitiates the proclamation proceedings.”

“Section 82 CrPC Is Not a Mere Formality—Its Breach Destroys the Legal Sanctity of the Entire Process”

Referring to settled law, the Court reaffirmed the mandatory nature of Section 82 CrPC, holding that its triple publication requirement, the recording of the court’s satisfaction, and compliance with the 30-day notice rule are not directory but mandatory.

Justice Goel cited the precedent set in Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021 (1) RCR (Criminal) 319, to assert that “the court cannot issue the proclamation as a matter of course because the police is asking for it.” He further held that “the absence of conclusive findings regarding absconding, combined with a lack of adherence to the publication method as per Section 82(2), renders the entire proclamation process a nullity.”

The Court called the proclamation order “an antithesis to the provisions of Section 82” and stated clearly that “such serious coercive measures must not be invoked in a casual and cavalier manner.”

“Petitioner Was Not an Absconder, Was Granted Bail, and Had Cooperated—Proceedings Are Abuse of Process”

The petitioner had earlier been granted bail by the trial court on 16.07.2018, and according to the record, had regularly appeared in court until a personal family crisis rendered him unable to arrange legal representation. He had not intentionally evaded the process.

The High Court rejected the State’s argument that the petitioner had deliberately misused the benefit of bail and observed that “the petitioner has already joined the investigation and duly cooperated. His absence was neither deliberate nor willful but occurred due to personal hardship.”

Justice Goel concluded that “no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner”, and that the continuation of the proceedings based on a defective proclamation was a grave injustice.

“If the Court Doesn’t Apply Its Judicial Mind Before Declaring a Citizen a Fugitive, the Entire Process Is Unconstitutional”

In a clear message to trial courts, the High Court stated that “recording of judicial satisfaction is not a procedural nicety—it is the bedrock of fairness under Section 82.” The judgment makes it plain that trial courts must not succumb to routine police requests for proclamation orders without exercising judicial discretion grounded in law and fact.

By invoking its powers under Section 482 CrPC and its future counterpart Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court quashed not only the proclamation order but also all the consequential proceedings, thus safeguarding the petitioner's fundamental right to fair procedure.

Final Word from the Court: “Declaration of Proclaimed Offender Cannot Precede Compliance with Statutory Preconditions”

The ruling serves as a judicial rebuke against the erosion of due process and reaffirms that liberty cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative convenience. Justice Goel’s judgment is a crucial reminder that courts must be vigilant in protecting individual rights, even in the course of criminal administration.

“When the process adopted by the court violates the clear mandate of law, the remedy lies in undoing such illegality at the earliest—else, the procedural rot begins to eat into the foundation of justice itself,” the Court declared.

The judgment stands as a procedural checkpoint for all criminal courts and a shield for individuals wrongfully dragged into punitive processes without lawful basis.

Date of Decision: 13 October 2025