Proclaimed Person Declaration Invalid Without First Issuing Summons Or Bailable Warrants: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Trial Courts Must Strictly Adhere to Section 82 CrPC Before Declaring an Accused a Proclaimed Person - In a crucial ruling reinforcing procedural safeguards under criminal law, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed the declaration of an accused as a proclaimed person and the FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC, citing failure to comply with Section 82 CrPC. The court held that the Trial Court had issued the proclamation without first issuing summons or bailable warrants, violating mandatory legal requirements.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar emphasized that courts must record satisfaction that an accused is deliberately evading proceedings before declaring them a proclaimed person. The court observed: "Issuance of a proclamation without prior summons or bailable warrants renders the declaration invalid. Section 82 CrPC requires the court to first establish that the accused is intentionally avoiding the legal process before resorting to coercive measures."

"FIR Under Section 174-A IPC Quashed: Consequential Proceedings Stand Invalid"

The petitioner, Rajiv Kumar, was declared a proclaimed person in a complaint filed under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC. Following this, an FIR under Section 174-A IPC was lodged against him. The High Court, however, ruled that: "When the foundational order declaring an accused a proclaimed person is flawed, all consequential proceedings, including an FIR under Section 174-A IPC, automatically stand vitiated."

Referring to its earlier judgment in Major Singh @ Major v. State of Punjab, 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406, the court reiterated that: "A proclamation under Section 82 CrPC is not a mere formality but a serious procedural step that must be supported by clear judicial reasoning. If such an order is issued without compliance, the entire proceeding collapses."

"Right to Fair Procedure: Section 82 CrPC Compliance is Mandatory"

The court stressed that non-compliance with procedural safeguards directly affects the accused’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. It held that: "The law does not permit arbitrary deprivation of liberty. A person cannot be labeled a proclaimed offender unless the legal process has been properly followed. Courts must ensure fairness before invoking coercive measures."

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in C. Muniappan & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567, the court underscored the mandatory nature of procedural compliance under criminal law: "No court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of certain offenses unless the procedure prescribed under Section 195 CrPC is strictly adhered to. Failure to do so vitiates the entire prosecution."

"Petition Allowed: Impugned Orders and FIR Set Aside"

With these observations, the High Court allowed the petition, quashing the order declaring Rajiv Kumar a proclaimed person, along with the FIR under Section 174-A IPC. The court concluded:

"When procedural fairness is compromised, justice is denied. The impugned order and consequential FIR are hereby set aside, ensuring that due process remains the bedrock of criminal justice."

This ruling reaffirms the fundamental legal principle that courts must strictly adhere to procedural mandates before depriving an individual of their liberty and sends a clear message that declarations under Section 82 CrPC cannot be made arbitrarily.

Date of decision: 06/02/2025