Harmandeep Singh v. State Of Punjab And ANR
2.
Before proceeding to decide the issue relating to quashing of the FIR (Annexure P-1), it would be appropriate to examine the legality of the impugned order dated 20.02.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by the trial Court, whereby the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender in the present case.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely involved in the FIR. In fact, after registration of FIR, warrants were issued against the petitioner, but he was never served through warrants. Ultimately, vide order dated 09.12.2009, it was ordered that the petitioner may be served through proclamation for 15.01.2010. The proclamation was, however, published on 08.01.2010, whereby the petitioner was directed to appear on 15.01.2010. On 15.01.2010, the trial Court also noticed the fact that the proclamation qua the petitioner was effected on 08.01.2010 and the statutory period of 30 days had not expired, consequently, the case was adjourned to 20.02.2010 for appearance of the petitioner. On 20.02.2010, the statement of serving official i.e.
HC Jagdev Singh was recorded by the trial Court and the same has been reproduced below:- "Statement of HC Jagdev Singh, No.906, Moga P.S. Baghapurana The order of proclamation qua accused Harmandeep Singh son of Gurmit Singh was received by me. I went at the spot on 08.01.2010. The accused was not available. However, copy of proclamation was pasted on the door of house of the accused and another copy of the same was pasted on public place. A copy of same was also pasted on the notice board of the court complex. Copy of order is Ex.PX and proclamation report dated 08.01.2010 is Ex.PY."
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was declared to be a proclaimed offender in the present case by completely overlooking the mandatory provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C.
5.
On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not appeared intentionally before the trial Court, despite having knowledge about the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court. Thus, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. However, learned counsel for the respondents could not rebut the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present case. 6.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully with their able assistance.
!! "
!
"
# $ $
%&" ' !
( "
%&" ) %* #
" #)
(
" ' ( + ( " ' (
" ) " #, - # ( !
(
.
)
( "
"
( * ( "
( * ("
( .
!
(( ( ) "
'" ( " )# $/0
( ) 12
/0, )/(
% ) 0 (" ( " ( * " (
"
3 " " " "
/0 ************** /0 **************
4,)( ))# $/0
( .
(
!
(( ' " )# $
'( ) " ' (
" 5
#
$ %& '
()()*++),
4' ) 3 ) "
" " ) " "
" , ( ) ' "
( "
3 " '
' "
3
.
/* 20 " "( " # $/0 9.
In the present case also, this Court is of the considered view that the mandatory provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. had not been complied by the trial Court. Vide order dated 09.12.2019, the present petitioner was ordered to be served through proclamation for 15.01.2010. Admittedly, the proclamation was published on 08.01.2010, requiring the petitioner to appear on 15.01.2010, i.e. after a period of seven days of publication of the proclamation. Thus, the statutory notice of 30 days was not granted to the petitioner for his appearance before the trial Court. Further, even the trial Court had noticed on 15.01.2010 that since the statutory period of 30 days had not expired, the case was adjourned to 20.02.2010, awaiting the appearance of the accused. However, the adjournment to 20.02.2010 can never be construed as sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. Thus, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the trial Court had not complied with the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. while declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender.
!
" !
#! !
#
"
"
!
$
#
%
#
#
& ' #
#
#
(&)'*
# ## #
#
+
#
#
# #
, !
#
#
"
(&)'*
#
"
"
!
$
#
# -# "
#!
(* !
#
#
#
.
#!
) /*/#
) /*#
#
# 0
#
#
$
)
(*#
"#
0
#
#
$
!
.
!
*
* 0
*
%
0 !
"
#
!
#!
! 1!
! !
!
$ - .
- / $
/
*0 #
#
" #
)( *
"
#
#
#
# 0
#
!
" " #&#'. #"
( 2 !
" # #
+ " FIR in question on the basis of compromise, the same
"
" #
# !
3 5 "
3 4
6 3
7 5"7 " #
" #
#
2( 4
#
#
#
3
#
2(
3 4
&/
$ 6 (9 '
/# /
$ 6 (9
3 4
#
# 9
"
#
"
) 7 " "
#
2(
!
#
:
-6 +
+
#
" "
+
; . , <
#
$ # %& ' / +
++
!"#
$ %&'
!"#
( #)
*
!"#
%&+
$ % &
, % &
+
, %&(
- (
(
$ - '
.
' (
-
%/&0 1
%/&+
-
, ,
%/& 0
( )2 '
( )2' 34
( )2'
-
( )2 ' 3
, , 5
6
,
0
-
.
%/& +
!"#
7
5
8 -
5
0
!"#
( )2 ' (
( )2'
9
= >
" " " + " -6
* # , <
#
2 ( %
3 4 1
5 06
0+
4 (
) ) 1 0 ( $ 3 " 2" # * )
)(" " )
"" "
" " ( ) ) "
")7 0( * ( )) " ) %" #
) ) " 7 0" ( *
% )
""
) ((%
3 " "" ( ) " 7 )0 8, " (
"
) " 8, 9 " ( ) "
3 *( $
))
" ") :() : ( " " 8, ;,< " ) , ( : * " ( 8, %
) ( ) ( " , ; ( : ( ) 9
( :() * :
(" ) )
9 " 9 #* "(
"
)
' "
.
! .
8 = # / 0 " ( "
)7 )0(* ( $ 3 " 2" ( ) ) " : 3 7 " ( ( ( (
( " ( "
"" ?
# " ! , <
#
!
# !
#
#
#
2( FIR No.36 dated 06.03.2019 under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station Bagh Purana, District Moga along with all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
18.
As regards the order dated 20.02.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga, declaring the petitioner to be proclaimed offender, the same is also set aside, keeping in view the observations made above. . #
#
"
*
"
## &'
#
%&""'()'*+*,- $
./01( 2
+##"2 3 5("3&6 +## 4 5("3&6