No One Can Be Declared Proclaimed Offender Without Strict Compliance of Section 82 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Order

“Proclamation Proceedings Cannot Be Mechanical or Casual—Failure to Issue Fresh Proclamation After Adjournment Vitiates Entire Process” - Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a landmark decision setting aside a proclamation order issued under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against a 77-year-old Non-Resident Indian who was never served notice, never declared absconding with reasons, and yet was declared a proclaimed offender. Justice Sumeet Goel allowed the petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, holding the impugned order as illegal, mechanically passed, and violative of statutory and constitutional safeguards.

The petitioner, Amarjit Mehmi, had been declared a proclaimed person by the Judicial Magistrate, SBS Nagar, in a pending criminal case under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The High Court, however, found that none of the mandatory prerequisites under Section 82 CrPC were met, including the requirement of issuing a proclamation with at least 30 days’ notice, judicial satisfaction that the accused was absconding, and compliance with publication procedures.

“Declaration of Proclaimed Offender Without Following Statutory Safeguards is Illegal and Unsustainable”

The Court observed that the original proclamation was issued on 06.10.2016 but the matter was adjourned to 28.10.2016 without issuing a fresh proclamation, as required by law. It noted:

“The impugned order reflects non-compliance with the statutory requirement of waiting for a minimum of 30 days after publication of proclamation before declaring an accused a proclaimed offender.”

The High Court reiterated that Section 82 CrPC is mandatory, not merely procedural, and its non-compliance “vitiates the entire proceedings.” Citing Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319, it affirmed that:

“The proclamation must be issued only after the Court is satisfied that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself with intent to evade arrest. That satisfaction must be recorded in the order itself.”

“No Notice Served, No Absconding Established, No Embassy Communication Attempted”: Natural Justice Violated

One of the most damning findings of the Court was that the petitioner had not been served with any warrant, summons, or notice, and there was no attempt made by the police or court to communicate through official international channels despite knowing that the petitioner was an NRI.

“The petitioner was regularly travelling in and out of India, as evidenced by passport entries. No service was attempted via the Indian Embassy, nor was any order passed for service abroad.”

The Court held that the proclamation was passed in breach of natural justice, and stated:

“There was no deliberate evasion or wilful non-appearance on the part of the petitioner. The entire proclamation proceeding is antithetical to law.”

The Bench also underscored that the Magistrate failed to record any judicial satisfaction that the petitioner was absconding or concealing himself to avoid arrest:

“The Court below has committed illegality by issuing the said proclamation under Section 82 without complying the mandatory requirements of law... Such an order, being violative of mandatory provisions, cannot be sustained.”

“Proclamation Under Section 82 CrPC Cannot Be Casual—Failure to Follow All Publication Modes Renders It Void”

Relying on binding precedents including Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State of W.B. and Birad Dan v. State, the Court emphasized that all three modes of publication under Section 82(2)—public reading in the locality, affixation on the residence, and affixation in court—must be proved. The Court noted:

“The three sub-clauses (a) to (c) in Section 82(2)(i) are conjunctive and not disjunctive. There would be no valid publication unless all three are proved.”

The High Court further clarified that even if the accused is not in India, the prescribed process of international service or Section 105-B CrPC must be followed.

“When Statutory Procedure Is Ignored, Proclamation Becomes a Legal Nullity”

The Court firmly held that the proclamation and all subsequent proceedings were void, stating:

“Section 82 has serious ramifications on the liberty of a person... It cannot be invoked in a casual and cavalier manner.”

It also stated that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner served no purpose, especially as he had now joined investigation and cooperated fully.

“No useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending... This is an appropriate case for exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.”

Declaration Quashed, Proceedings Terminated

Holding that “non-compliance with Section 82 is not a curable irregularity but a fatal illegality”, the Court quashed the order dated 28.10.2016 declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender, as well as all consequential proceedings flowing from the said declaration. It directed that all pending applications also stand disposed of.

“The Court below proceeded in a mechanical manner. Such an order, being violative of the mandatory provisions of law, cannot be sustained.”

Date of Decision: 04.11.2025