High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/6168/2026disposed of

Malkeet Kaur Alias Malkeet Kaur Ghangas v. State Of Haryana

2026-03-11Ms. Justice Aaradhna Sawhney5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.03.2026 Malkeet Kaur @ Malkeet Kaur Ghangas

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present :

Mr. Sagar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunny Namdev, AAG, Haryana.

***** AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL) 1.

Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No.165 dated 29.06.2018 registered u/s 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC at Police Station Babain, District Kurukshetra, has prayed for setting aside the order dated 18.01.2022 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned JMIC, Shahabad vide which she (P) was declared a 'Proclaimed Person'.

Two fold submissions have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly that despite there being a specific report with the learned JMIC that petitioner has not been residing at the given address for the last 4 years, proclamation proceedings were initiated and effected at the said address.

Secondly, the Executing Constable did not publicly read out the proclamation at some conspicuous place of town/village/locality where petitioner-accused was residing. Thus, as per learned counsel, the requirements of sub clause (i) of Sub Section 2 of Section 82 Cr.P.C were not complied with, which fact escaped the attention of Court. Impugned order dated 18.01.2022, thus being not 'in sync' with the codal requirements,

deserves to be set aside.

Heard. Documents on record perused.

At the outset, it needs to be ascertained as to whether the procedural requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. were complied with by learned Magistrate before declaring petitioner 'Proclaimed Person'. In this context, before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to a judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in

!"#$$% & #'() *

+ ,-

. -

%# )

!"#$$% & #'() *

. *

1"23 )456

6((

!- 7

8 ")4459& 2 ,):%6 - *

;

0 ")4(49&%#(

2 ,

" #$#$#

664 -<

> ?, "#$)'%

)((

2 . ,

"#$)65

''$ - *

%# #

A +

+ B * B

B %## >

;

* < / ")4:69&)6(% <

- -

/ !

")4'%9&4(' - * .

%##

- -

%# -

/ !

" )4'% 9&4(' +* %##

C D

!- 7 ! 8

")4459&):%6

* ")4''9&6)% Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, there is nothing in the report of the executing constable from where it can be inferred that he had read the proclamation order at the site, which he was required to do. In view of the said flaw, it is evident that there procedural requirements of sub

clause (i) of Sub Section 2 of Section 82 Cr.P.C have not been complied with in letter and spirit.

Resultantly, the present petition stands allowed. Impugned order dated 18.01.2022 (Annexure P-5) is set aside. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Court concerned within a period of 15 days from today. In case, she surrenders before the Court concerned within 15 days from today, she be released on furnishing fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. She is also directed to furnish an undertaking by way of an affidavit that she will appear on each and every date of hearing before the trial Court, unless specifically exempted by the Court. She shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. The trial Court may impose any other condition that it may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Before parting with this order, it is made abundantly clear that in case the petitioner does not adhere to the aforesaid conditions, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed without any reference to this Court.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE 11.03.2026 Hemant Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No