Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

“Proclamation Cannot Be a Mechanical Ritual”, In a significant reaffirmation of procedural safeguards in criminal law, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, decided on 16.02.2026, held that a person cannot be declared a proclaimed person through a “mechanical and perfunctory” exercise of jurisdiction.

Delivering a reportable judgment, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel set aside the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samrala, declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person in a case arising out of FIR No.170 dated 02.10.2018 under Sections 295, 160, 323, 506 and 34 IPC.

The Court categorically observed that “the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature, and any non-compliance thereof vitiates the entire proceedings,” and further emphasized that proclamation proceedings, having serious civil and criminal consequences, cannot be sustained when statutory requirements are not strictly followed.

The petitioner had been granted bail during trial in a criminal case registered in 2018. During the pendency of proceedings, the parties entered into a compromise and approached the High Court, though the quashing petition was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on 20.02.2024.

Subsequently, the petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court on 12.04.2024. His bail bonds were cancelled and warrants of arrest were issued. As the warrants remained unexecuted, the trial Court initiated proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and eventually, on 09.12.2024, declared him a proclaimed person.

Before the High Court, it was argued that the petitioner had gone abroad for higher studies, a fact already within the knowledge of the Court, and that the mandatory procedure under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had not been complied with. It was specifically contended that the proclamation was not publicly read in a conspicuous place as required by law.

“Mandatory Means Mandatory” – Court on Section 82 Cr.P.C.

Justice Sumeet Goel undertook a detailed examination of Section 82 Cr.P.C., reproducing its text and reiterating that before issuing a proclamation, the Court must have “reason to believe” that the person “has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed.”

The Court held:

“It is trite that the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature, and any non-compliance thereof vitiates the entire proceedings.”

Referring to the earlier decision in Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319, the Court reiterated that the three modes of publication under Section 82(2)(i) are “conjunctive and not disjunctive.” The proclamation must be publicly read, affixed at the residence or conspicuous place, and affixed at the courthouse. Absence of compliance with even one requirement renders the proclamation invalid.

In the present case, the record revealed that although copies were affixed at certain places, there was no material to show that the proclamation was publicly read in a conspicuous place, as mandated.

The Court concluded that the trial Court “committed a manifest illegality by issuing and acting upon the proclamation without ensuring compliance with the mandatory statutory requirements.”

“Absconding Is a Jurisdictional Precondition” – Mere Foreign Stay Not Evasion

A crucial aspect of the ruling lies in the interpretation of “absconding.” The High Court made it clear that mere non-appearance cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that an accused is absconding.

“It is by now a settled principle of law that prior to issuing a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to record its satisfaction that the accused… is absconding or is concealing himself with the intention to evade arrest. This foundational and jurisdictional requirement is conspicuously absent in the present case.”

The Court noted that the petitioner’s stay abroad for higher studies was already reflected in earlier proceedings. Yet, the trial Court recorded satisfaction that he was willfully absconding. Such satisfaction, without cogent material, was held to be legally unsustainable.

Inherent Powers Under Section 528 BNSS – To Secure Ends of Justice

The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which corresponds to Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court held that where proclamation proceedings are founded upon procedural illegality, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

“The provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, having serious civil and criminal ramifications… cannot be invoked in a casual or cavalier manner.”

Finding the proclamation proceedings legally flawed, the Court exercised its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the order dated 09.12.2024 declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Pending applications were also disposed of.

The judgment stands as a powerful reminder that due process is not a procedural formality but a constitutional necessity. By reiterating that “mechanical exercise of jurisdiction” in proclamation matters cannot be sustained, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has reinforced the sanctity of statutory safeguards under Section 82 Cr.P.C.

Date of Decision: 16/02/2026