Section 84 BNSS | Mechanical Declaration as ‘Proclaimed Person’ Without Due Procedure Illegal: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Declaration of a Person as Proclaimed Must Be Based on Judicial Satisfaction – Not a Ritualistic Exercise” – In a significant ruling that reiterates the need for strict adherence to statutory safeguards before curtailing an individual's liberty, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the order of a Judicial Magistrate in Karnal declaring a man a “proclaimed person” under Section 84(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — the provision replacing Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Justice Sumeet Goel, while deciding CRM-M-32177 of 2025, found that the proclamation proceedings initiated against Sunil Kumar, the petitioner, were vitiated by non-compliance with mandatory legal requirements and were carried out in a mechanical and casual manner, rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law.

“No Person Can Be Declared a Proclaimed Offender Unless Statutory Safeguards Are Followed Meticulously”

At the heart of the case was the trial court’s order dated 12.03.2025, passed in a private complaint titled Karamjeet Singh v. Sunil Kumar, declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person and directing the registration of an FIR against him under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (false evidence).

However, the High Court noted that no proper service of summons or warrants had taken place. Bailable warrants were allegedly “served” through family members, and non-bailable warrants were returned unexecuted. Yet, the Magistrate went on to declare the petitioner a proclaimed person without recording any judicial satisfaction that he was absconding or concealing himself to evade arrest, which is the foundational requirement under Section 84 BNSS / Section 82 CrPC.

Justice Goel observed: “The Court below has committed illegality by issuing the said proclamation without compliance of mandatory requirements of law. It failed to satisfy itself regarding due execution of proclamation and proceeded in a mechanical manner. Such an order… cannot be sustained.” [Para 6]

Execution Through Family Members Is Not Valid Service

The High Court further rejected the trial court’s reliance on alleged execution of bailable warrants through family members. Citing binding precedents, it held: “Such mode of service does not constitute valid service in law. Absence of lawful service vitiates subsequent proclamation proceedings.” [Para 5]

The Court emphasized that Section 84 BNSS (previously Section 82 CrPC) lays down a mandatory and structured procedure, including:

• Issuance of a prior warrant,

• A finding that the accused is absconding or concealing himself,

• A written proclamation to be published in a specified manner (public reading, affixing on the house, at conspicuous places, and the courthouse),

• A minimum of 30 clear days for appearance.

None of these requirements were demonstrated in the impugned order.

No Judicial Satisfaction Recorded – Foundational Deficiency

The High Court critically noted that the Magistrate failed to record any satisfaction—based on material or evidence—that the petitioner was absconding or deliberately evading arrest.

Justice Goel wrote: “This foundational requirement is conspicuously absent in the present case. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that no such satisfaction was recorded by the Court below, nor was there any material to justify the inference that the petitioner had absconded.” [Para 8]

Referring to precedent in Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319, the Court underscored that proclamation proceedings cannot be treated as a mere formality. The judgment extensively cited cases like Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi (2008), Devendra Singh Negi v. State of U.P. (1994), and Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State of W.B. (1973), which lay down the conjunctive and mandatory nature of the steps required under Section 82 CrPC / Section 84 BNSS.

Exercise of Inherent Jurisdiction Under Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC

Terming the continuation of the proceedings a manifest abuse of process, the Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (akin to Section 482 CrPC) to quash both the proclamation and all consequential directions, including the direction to register an FIR under Section 209 BNS.

“The requirement of recording of satisfaction… is to be scrupulously complied with… Non-adherence… vitiates the proclamation proceedings.” [Para 9]

“It is, therefore, an appropriate case for the exercise of powers… to bring to an end the criminal proceedings…” [Para 10]

Casual Exercise of Coercive Powers Cannot Be Tolerated

With this judgment, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has sent a clear message: Proclamation proceedings under Section 84 BNSS are not to be treated as a procedural shortcut. The declaration of an individual as a proclaimed person carries serious consequences, and the statutory safeguards are not optional.

The ruling is a significant reminder to the lower judiciary that judicial satisfaction must be recorded in writing and based on real evidence, not conjecture or clerical return reports. It also emphasizes that inherent powers of the High Court remain an essential constitutional tool to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process.

Date of Decision: January 9, 2026