Declaration of Proclaimed Offender - Provisions Of Section 82(2) CrPC Are To Be Mandatorily Complied With Cumulatively And Not Alternatively: P&H HC

“Declaration of Proclaimed Offender Must Fulfill Mandatory Conditions Under Section 82 CrPC” - High Court of Punjab and Haryana delivered a significant ruling addressing procedural lapses in declaring an accused as a proclaimed person under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. The Court quashed the impugned order of proclamation against petitioner Kapil Kumar on the ground that his absence was neither deliberate nor wilful, and the mandatory procedure under Section 82 CrPC had not been duly followed.

“Purpose of Proclamation is to Secure Presence, Not to Penalize the Accused” – Court Observes in Relief-Oriented Judgment

In a case involving proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed an order dated 21.09.2023 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, which had declared petitioner Kapil Kumar a proclaimed person. The High Court emphasized that non-appearance of an accused, especially where summons or warrants were never duly served due to incorrect addresses, cannot automatically result in penal proclamation without procedural compliance.

The complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was instituted in 2023 against Kapil Kumar. Due to the accused shifting residence to Dhakoli and the complainant/respondent No.2 failing to provide the updated address in the complaint, the summons, bailable warrants, and arrest warrants were never received by the petitioner. Nevertheless, the trial court proceeded to declare the petitioner a "proclaimed person" by order dated 21.09.2023.

Petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482 CrPC (though the order mentions Section 528, it appears to be a clerical error), seeking to quash the said proclamation order on the ground that the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 82 CrPC were not adhered to.

Whether the proclamation under Section 82 CrPC was validly issued when the accused had not been served due to incorrect address and the requirements of Section 82(2) CrPC were not complied with.

The Court cited its previous ruling in Gurbir Singh Mundi vs State of Punjab, CRM-M-49283-2021, decided on 16.12.2021, in which it was categorically held that: “Provisions of Section 82(2) CrPC are to be mandatorily complied with cumulatively and not alternatively.”

Specifically, the Court emphasized that the declaration of proclamation must be read “publicly in some conspicuous place of town or village, in which the accused ordinarily resides”, as per statutory mandate.

The Court noted that the objective of such proceedings is: “to compel and secure the presence of the accused to face trial and establish the rule of law, as also to ensure finalization of the proceedings.”

Justice Aman Chaudhary noted that the petitioner’s absence was sufficiently explained and could not be treated as deliberate. Importantly, the petitioner had expressed readiness to join the trial proceedings.

The High Court quashed the impugned proclamation order dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure P-3) subject to the petitioner surrendering before the trial court by 30.09.2025 and paying costs of ₹10,000 to respondent No.2.

The Court ordered that upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, the petitioner shall be released on bail. However, certain strict conditions were imposed:

• The petitioner must file an affidavit undertaking appearance on each hearing date, unless specifically exempted.

• He shall not leave the country without prior court permission.

• The trial court is permitted to impose any other conditions as deemed appropriate.

The Court further warned: “In case the petitioner does not adhere to the aforesaid, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed without any reference to this Court.”

This judgment reaffirms that mechanical declaration of an accused as a proclaimed person without adhering to the procedural rigour of Section 82 CrPC vitiates the proceedings. The High Court’s intervention underscores the importance of due process, even in cheque dishonour cases under the NI Act, ensuring that coercive measures are not used prematurely or without legal justification.

Date of Decision: 18.09.2025