Ved Parkash And ANR v. State Of Haryana And ANR

 
  







  

   !!!!

 

"#$

$%&'& ()

  *$+
",-"'.
"(+
"( #.$,
$#&#& ($,'

*' #"#$

",/"("
"(+
#.$,'

$'0 (+$(#'

 ) 1 2


*

  












 




 


!
"#



$ %

&&&& "'.3&,
&(4.
"#.

,5

6,"78 


'



()%
*  *+,%)
 -$
%.%/

0


.1 .2 %.%,
3 4
 25

'


6

7
* 

' 


87!
$ %29
 :9 .) %.:)



(%.

,.9
7*

 


'  * 


' 

#



'
 

   


0



0




%

Upon notice, the State Counsel as well as counsel for the complainant have appeared. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and material placed on the file has been perused. Power of Attorney has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 - complainant and the same is taken on record. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that proper procedure has not been followed while declaring the accused as Proclaimed Persons in terms of Section 82 Cr.P.C and they have been wrongly declared as Proclaimed Persons. Learned counsel has next contended that the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C was ordered to be issued for 26.03.2025 vide order dated 04.12.2024 and on

 26.03.2025, proclamation was received back duly served and statement of serving constable was recorded. However, it was observed that mandatory period of one month has not been lapsed and the case was adjourned to 09.07.2025 for appearance of accused, on which date, the petitioners were declared as Proclaimed Persons. Learned counsel has next contended that once proclamation had been issued for 26.03.2025 and it had not been served 30 days prior to the date fixed, i.e. 26.03.2025, the Magistrate could not have adjourned the case simplicitor for appearance of the accused on 09.07.2025. Rather, fresh proclamation should have been issued by fixing a date beyond a period of 30 days and since petitioners were declared Proclaimed Persons on 09.07.2025 and no proclamation had infact been issued for 09.07.

2025, they were not aware of the proceedings and they have been wrongly declared as Proclaimed Persons on 09.07.2025. Learned counsel has next contended that the petitioners were declared as Proclaimed Persons in F7!
$ %29

:9 .) %.:)



(%.

,.

' 
* 


' 

#



'
 





'
  
'#

  
;
" 


 
;

<






 

 

0


87!


'

  

*!

(,2,, 
%.%,
 
=*$+
",-"'.
"(+
"( #.$,
*'
#"#$

",/"("
"(+
"( #.$,9 #



  

 



 
 

  





)%
*  *

 
'

 
'
0




#

4.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has argued that the petitioners could not be served when his non-bailable warrants were issued and thereafter, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued and

: they were declared Proclaimed Persons. Learned State Counsel has contended that the impugned order is well reasoned and speaking and does not call for interference and petition deserves to be dismissed. 5.

A perusal of the order dated 04.12.2024 shows that proclamation was ordered to be issued for 26.03.2025 and on 26.03.2025, proclamation was received back duly served and statement of serving constable was recorded. However, it was observed that mandatory period of one month had not been lapsed and the case was adjourned to 09.07.2025 for appearance of accused. However, once proclamation had been issued for 26.03.2025 and it had not been served 30 days prior to the date fixed, i.e. 26.03.2025, the Magistrate could not have adjourned the case simplicitor for appearance of the accused on 09.07.2025. Rather, fresh proclamation should have been issued by fixing a date beyond a period of 30 days. Infact, no proclamation had been issued against the accused for 09.07.2025 on which date they were declared Proclaimed Persons.

A co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding CRM-M-41656-2023 titled Pardeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana vide judgment dated 23.08.2023 has held that once proclamation is issued, it must be set forth in the proclamation as to where and when the accused must present himself. A designated location and time must be stipulated and importantly, the specific date and time for appearance should not be less than 30 days from the date of publication of proclamation, which is missing in the present case.

6.

As such, proper procedure has not been followed while declaring the petitioners as proclaimed persons and the impugned order, thus, suffers from material irregularity and illegality and the same is, thus not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.





*
-


*

 




  





%.

./ %.%,
  




  



:/)

$7


' ##



  
'#




 #



'
 

  


'



'
0

"

 



#

#
'
>'


 
*

* 


$ (/,1

%.%(
 


  


 .% .:

%.%,

#


'
 




#

 #
 

  






:2(

7* #

'


'



'
0





   
'#



7



 


  



  




0

87!


' 
  

 
'


*!

(,2,,

%.%,

  




  
" 




  



  

?


 


 .1 .2 %.%,

#


#
 
  


'

 
'
0

8.

As a result of the afore-said discussion, the present petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure P.7), vide which, the petitioners were declared proclaimed persons is set aside. 9.

Pending misc. applications(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.






















6 "'.3&,
&(4.
"#.

,8













;+4$ $0#$<=$,

5
 ,$(;

@
<+
A+$ @
!'


A+$