Declaration of Proclaimed Person Must Reflect Judicial Satisfaction and Legal Compliance: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Proclamation cannot be sustained in law when issued without proper service or reasons reflecting belief that accused is absconding” –  In a significant ruling Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a proclamation order under Section 82 CrPC, holding that the Trial Court’s failure to record mandatory satisfaction and ensure proper service rendered the order illegal and unconstitutional.

“Absence of Reasons or Valid Service Renders Proclamation Proceedings a Nullity”

At the heart of the decision lies the Court’s categorical affirmation that no accused can be declared a proclaimed person unless the statutory safeguards under Section 82 CrPC are scrupulously observed. Justice Sanjay Vashisth made it unequivocally clear:

“Declaration of a person as a ‘proclaimed person’ is not a mere formality. It must be preceded by due service, conscious application of mind, and judicial satisfaction that the accused is absconding or is deliberately avoiding appearance.”

The Court emphasized that the object of such coercive proceedings is not to punish default, but to secure attendance for ensuring a fair trial.

“No Justification to Sustain a Proclamation Passed Without Compliance of Section 82(1) and 82(2) CrPC”

The impugned order dated 07.01.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, declared the petitioner a proclaimed person in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 NI Act. However, the High Court found that:

“The order does not record any satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself. The trial court mechanically issued the proclamation, without even ensuring that earlier summons or warrants were served properly.”

Further, the petitioner had not received any summons or warrants, as the process was attempted at a wrong or incomplete address, which the police later verified.

“Fair Trial Is A Constitutional Right – Proclamation Proceedings Cannot Override Article 21”

Referring to the petitioner’s voluntary appearance after coming to know about the proclamation, the Court held: “Once the petitioner has submitted before this Court and expressed willingness to appear before the Trial Court, and has never been deliberately absconding, it would be a travesty of justice to continue the coercive process.”

Quoting from earlier binding precedent (Ashish Kumar Honda v. State of Punjab), the Court reiterated: “Courts must not indulge in a mechanical exercise of declaring a person proclaimed. The purpose is to ensure presence for adjudication, not to victimize.”

Quashing of Proclamation with Conditions to Ensure Future Attendance

Justice Vashisth quashed the proclamation order with the following direction:

“The impugned order dated 07.01.2023 is hereby quashed to the extent of declaring the petitioner as ‘proclaimed person’. The petitioner shall surrender before the Trial Court on or before 17.05.2025, and be released on bail on furnishing bonds and depositing ₹10,000 with an Old Age Home.”

The condition of depositing with a welfare fund was imposed for wasting court time, striking a balance between accountability and fairness.

This judgment stands as a robust reaffirmation of the principle that coercive criminal procedure must be exercised with caution, legality, and fairness. Proclamation orders, if passed without compliance of statutory mandates or due service, cannot survive judicial scrutiny.

It reinforces that: “The liberty of a citizen is too valuable to be sacrificed at the altar of procedural shortcuts or assumptions of evasion. A fair process is not optional – it is constitutional.”

Date of Decision: 05 May 2025