Proclamation Proceedings Can't Be Invoked In Cavalier Manner; Compliance With Section 82 CrPC Mandatory: Punjab & Haryana HC

"Provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure having serious ramifications qua the right of the accused concerning his presence in the criminal trial proceedings ought not be and cannot be invoked in casual and cavalier manner," Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling dated May 12, 2026, held that the procedure for declaring a person as a "proclaimed person" under Section 82 of the CrPC is mandatory and any mechanical non-compliance vitiates the entire proceeding.

A single-judge bench of Justice Sumeet Goel observed that such orders carry serious civil and criminal consequences and must not be passed without scrupulous adherence to the statutory requirements. The Court emphasized that a trial court must record its independent satisfaction regarding an accused absconding before invoking such powers.

The petitioner, Omkar Singh, was declared a proclaimed person by a Judicial Magistrate in Chandigarh in connection with an FIR alleging kidnapping, extortion, and cheating. His name had surfaced in a disclosure statement of a co-accused, and the trial court initiated proclamation proceedings after warrants remained unexecuted. The petitioner challenged the order under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending that the mandatory procedural requirements for publication and recording of statements were entirely ignored by the lower court.

The primary question before the Court was whether the trial court complied with the mandatory procedural safeguards provided under Section 82 of the CrPC before declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person. The Court was also called upon to determine if a proclamation order passed without recording the statement of the serving officer or the judicial satisfaction of the Magistrate can be sustained in law.

Strict Adherence To Section 82 CrPC Is Mandatory

The Court observed that the law is well-settled regarding the declaration of a proclaimed offender or person. Justice Goel noted that the provisions of Section 82 are mandatory in nature, and any non-compliance thereof vitiates the entire proceedings. The Court found that in the present case, the trial court had merely observed that the "mandatory period of 30 days has expired" and proceeded to declare the petitioner a proclaimed person without verifying the mode and manner of publication.

Court Must Record Independent Satisfaction

The Bench highlighted that a Court cannot issue a proclamation as a matter of course simply because the police request it. The Court must be prima facie satisfied that the person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest cannot be executed despite reasonable diligence. In this case, the High Court found that the trial court failed to record any such satisfaction or point to any material justifying the inference that the petitioner was deliberately avoiding service.

> "The requirement of recording of satisfaction, that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself... is to be scrupulously complied with based on relevant material available on record."

Triple Mode Of Publication Is Conjunctive Not Disjunctive

Relying on the precedent in Sonu v. State of Haryana (2021), the Court explained that Section 82(2) prescribes three specific modes of publication: public reading in a conspicuous place, affixation at the accused's residence, and affixation at the courthouse. The Court clarified that these three sub-clauses are conjunctive, meaning there is no valid publication unless all three modes are proved. Any failure to comply with even one of these modes renders the proclamation a nullity.

Statement Of Serving Officer Must Be Recorded

The Court further noted a critical procedural lapse where the statement of the serving official was not recorded. Under the law, the statement of the officer who executed the proclamation must be recorded by the Court regarding the date and mode of publication. Furthermore, the Court issuing the proclamation must make a written statement in its order that the proclamation was duly published, which then serves as conclusive evidence of compliance. The absence of these steps in the zimni orders was found to be fatal to the prosecution's case.

"Any non-compliance therewith cannot be cured as an 'irregularity' and renders the Proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity."

Exercise Of Quashing Power Under Section 528 BNSS

The Court held that since the proclamation proceedings were initiated in a casual and cavalier manner, it was a fit case to exercise powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC). The Court noted that the petitioner claimed he had no knowledge of the proceedings due to a spinal injury and was undergoing treatment. Given the procedural illegalities, the Bench determined that keeping the criminal proceedings regarding the proclamation alive would serve no useful purpose.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the order dated December 14, 2023, along with all consequential proceedings. The Court directed the petitioner to apply for regular or anticipatory bail within a period of two weeks, failing which the petition would be deemed dismissed. The ruling reaffirms that procedural shortcuts in depriving a citizen of liberty through proclamation proceedings will not be tolerated by the higher judiciary.

Date of Decision: 12 May 2026