Proclamation Orders: ‘Incurable Illegality’ Leads to Quashing of Proclamation: P&H High Court

In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of procedural compliance in criminal proceedings, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a proclamation order, citing ‘incurable illegality’ in its issuance. The order in question had declared Vanam Murali Yadav, the petitioner, a proclaimed person in a cheque dishonor case under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while allowing the petition, emphasized the critical nature of adhering to the mandatory conditions outlined in Section 82 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The Court highlighted that non-recording of the satisfaction by the trial court before issuing the proclamation constitutes an ‘incurable illegality’, thus rendering the proclamation a nullity.

The case originated from a complaint under Sections 138 & 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where Yadav was accused of issuing a dishonored cheque. The subsequent legal notice sent to Yadav returned unserved, leading to the proclamation and trial proceedings. The Court, in its judgment, underscored the importance of proper service of process and recording of satisfaction as fundamental to the justice system, balancing individual liberty with societal interests.

In his ruling, Justice Brar referred to the judgments in Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab and Sonu Vs. State of Haryana, reiterating that the conditions specified for the publication of a proclamation against an absconder are mandatory, and any non-compliance cannot be cured as an ‘irregularity’.

Furthermore, the Court noted a compromise between the parties, with the complainant withdrawing the complaint, influencing the decision to set aside the proclamation order. This development was considered pivotal in the final disposition of the case.

The decision, hailed by legal experts, reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that the procedural aspects of criminal law are strictly adhered to, upholding the principles enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The advocates representing the parties, Mr. Pankaj Bali for the petitioner and Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana, played significant roles in presenting the complexities of the case.

Date of Decision: 20.11.2023

Vanam Murali Yadav VS Vikas Sapra and another