Jagvir Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.02.2025 Jagvir Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Bhupinder Singh Kundra, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (read with Section 482 Cr.P.C.), for quashing of order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, along with all other consequent proceedings arising therefrom in FIR No.229 dated 21.09.2019 registered under Sections 420, 406, 34 IPC at Police Station Canal Colony Bathinda, District Bathinda, vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the FIR (supra) has been registered on the basis of a false complaint, alleging that several individuals, including the petitioner, duped the complainant for 10,00,000/- ₹ under the pretext of securing his daughter's admission in Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, in the B.Sc. Agriculture stream. However, a bare perusal of the FIR reveals that no amount was deposited into the petitioner's account. Furthermore,

the petitioner was never summoned for investigation, and his implication is solely based on the complainant's statement made in the FIR (supra).

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was never served with the summons or warrants issued by the learned trial Court, and as a result, he was wrongly declared as proclaimed offender on 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-3). Aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition. It is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the mandate of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has not been followed in its letter and spirit by the trial Court. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent - State and supports the order passed by the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in appearance before the learned trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, therefore, having left with no other option, the proclamation was issued to secure his presence. 6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance and with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 7.

While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates

curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain a healthy balance between personal liberty of the individual-accused and interests of the society in promoting law and order. Such procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.

6.

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court issued proclamation without recording reasons of its belief that the petitioner has absconded or is concealing himself. This Court in the judgment passed in Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab 2023

(3) RCR (Criminal) 406; 2023 (2) Law Herald 1506 has held that the Court is first required to record its satisfaction before issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and non-recording of the satisfaction itself makes such order suffering from incurable illegality. 7.

The sole purpose of issuance of non-bailable warrants or issuance of proclamation is to secure presence of the accused before the trial Court. The petitioner in the present case has himself/herself come forward and has undertaken to appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing.

8.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-3), vide which the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender as well as all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby set-aside.

9.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned trial Court within a period of 04 weeks from today and on doing so, he shall be admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court, along with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with PGIMER Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh, for wasting precious time of the Court.

10.

The receipt of payment of costs imposed upon the petitioner must be presented before learned trial Court. Learned Court below is directed to grant bail to the petitioner only upon verification of the payment of said costs.

11.

However, in case, the petitioner fails to surrender before the learned trial Court within the stipulated time period, the interim protection granted by this Court, shall be deemed to be vacated. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 13.02.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No