Rajender Kumar v. Ind Swift Ltd.

   


    


    






















































 
 

  !"#  #$%&%'(

 

!)#'*+!,-.!+ !%* #"%"%'#+ /& '*0% "1"* #&2'*#'"

 ( 3 1
 /  



 

 









 




!&45%+%'64!"4+78+!9:



; 




! 

!





!

  
"# "$ %"%&


!


  

!


'

   
"& "% %"%&

  

'

 

()
 $

 #

%

! 

!!'

*) 

 +



()  $

 #



 
,
)
)

-.%
/  /0&%.
 12
%"%$

3) 

 
4 "- %"%&
5()
 6
 
,7 ! 

8/
/  
',7


 
,
!



!

 


 
, 
2 %.$#

%"$
5

"$ ".

%"%$6 !
9<&'*0% "/&!)#'*+!,-.!+ !%*=

 % Upon notice, Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and filed his vakalatnama. The same is taken on record. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the accused initially was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 18.03.2024. However, thereafter, he surrendered and was released on bail vide order dated 16.07.2024 and the case was adjourned to 20.08.2024 for cross-examination of the complainant. On 28.10.2024, accused absented and his bail was cancelled and arrest warrants were ordered to be issued for 07.11.2024 which were received back unserved and fresh warrants of arrest were ordered to be issued for 11.11.2024 and, thereafter, to 22.11.2024, 07.12.2024, 16.01.2025, 01.02.2025 and 04.03.2025. On 04.03.2025, the proclamation was ordered to be issued for 19.04.2025 and executing constable was directed to publish the proclamation on or before 19.03.2025 and to appear in the Court to make his statement.

The proclamation was issued for 19.04.2025 (Annexure P.13) but the executing constable appeared for making his statement on 19.04.2025 (Annexure P.15) and in his statement recorded on 19.04.2025, there is a cutting and date has been changed from 25.03.2025 to 19.03.2025 to show that proclamation was effected on 19.03.2025. Even in the report (Annexure P.13), the constable has changed the date from 25.03.2025 to 19.03.2025 and has ante-dated the same. As such, it can be presumed that the proclamation was infact effected on 25.03.2025 whereas it was required to be effected 30 days prior to 19.04.2025 and relying upon the report (Annexure P.

 (Annexure P.15), petitioner was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 19.04.2025. However, the proclamation was not published 30 days prior to the date fixed for his appearance which is a material illegality and on this score only, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

4.

Learned counsel further contended that statement of serving constable was recorded in which he stated that the proclamation was affixed at the address mentioned in the proclamation and second copy was affixed at the bus stand and third copy was affixed at the Court. However, the proclamation was not publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town where the accused resided and it was thus violation of provisions of Section 82(2)(i)(a) of Cr.P.C and on this score also, proclamation is invalid and a nullity and proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C are thus liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon 2022(1) Law Herald 219 - Rahul Dureja and another Vs. State of Punjab, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 493 - Harvinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2024(1) Law Herald 859 - Mahender Kumar Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., 2024(1) Law Herald 291 - Ramandeep Singh Sangha @ Ramna Sangha Vs. State of Punjab, and 2024(2) RCR (Criminal) 5- Sukhjinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another.

5.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has argued that the impugned order is well reasoned and speaking and does not call for any interference and petition deserves to be dismissed.

> 6.

Before proceeding further, relevant order dated 04.03.2025 is reproduced as under:- "Non-bailable warrants issued to accused received back with the report of incorrect address. Counsel for the complainant turned up suffered a separate statement that the address mentioned in the complaint is the last known address of the accused and accused is intentionally not appearing before the court and the presence of accused may kindly be procured through coercive method. On perusal of case file, it transpires that accused has been declared PO in the present case twice. Now again, accused has not appeared before this court. It is crystal clear that accused is intentionally not appearing before this court and trying to delay the proceedings. Therefore this court is constrained to issue proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.

C and the same is hereby ordered to be published requiring the accused to appear before this court on 19.04.2025 at sharp 10:00 A.M. The serving official is directed to publish the proclamation in all the three modes provided under Section 82(2)(i) Cr.P.C to publish it on or before 19.03.2025 so that sufficient period may be provided to accused to appear before this Court. Now the case stands to 19.03.2025 for recording the statement of Serving Official. Copy of this order be sent to Serving Official for compliance.

Date of Order: 04.03.2025 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh.

UID NO.PB679"

 7.


/ 
1


/)
'!

/:

-;&;

%"%$
!

 


) 
 
%$ .

%"%$  
!
 
,
) 

!


)

.%

/  / 
 /)
)
!, 


)


)



) )

! !!7
 ,!



  
) 
 )




()

, !

,!
0
 , !

,!
'

 
 


)
8

) ,
)

/)

 
 
) !

3)
  
,


 !
 !

 
()

'

 



8
 
,
)
!
 
 
< 

,!=

)!


 
.%

/  /

 

/)
)


,!



 !

,!



 !
 



 
,

  !
 !

 

()

'

 


8
 
,
) !
 

!



)

)
,




!



 '

'


) !
)

 !

  ! 

 
)
,
)!


8  !7


 

 


  
)!

,
!
 
$"
 7


 

),! 

 !



8.

A perusal of the record shows that the proclamation was issued for 19.04.2025 (Annexure P.13) but the executing constable appeared for making his statement on 19.04.2025 (Annexure P.15) and in his statement recorded on 19.04.2025, there is a cutting and date has been changed from 25.03.2025 to 19.03.2025 to show that proclamation was effected on 19.03.2025. Even in the report (Annexure P.13), the constable has changed the date from 25.03.2025 to

 19.03.2025 and has ante-dated the same. As such, it can be presumed that the proclamation was infact effected on 25.03.2025 whereas it was required to be effected 30 days prior to 19.04.2025 and relying upon the report (Annexure P.13) and statement of constable recorded in the Court (Annexure P.15), petitioner was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 19.04.2025. However, the proclamation was not published 30 days prior to the date fixed for his appearance which is a material illegality and on this score only, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

8


 
serving constable in his statement (Annexure P.15) stated that the proclamation was affixed at the address mentioned in the proclamation and second copy was affixed at the bus stand and third copy was affixed in the Court. '

!


'



 
),!!7

 ))
!




'
'

)
 !7

 / 
1


/)

    



 
!
 
 


 ! 


 7



.%5%6565 6

/  /


!




 
),!!7




))
!




'
 !!


'

)
 !7


)



 +'!

!







!




! ,!
 ,
3) 
8
  !  




 
,
)
!
 
 !





 
),!!7


!!


'
)




 )!

7
,)


!



),3)


)!!7
> 

!


 
)

.%
/  /  
 

 !

 10.

As a result of aforesaid discussion
8




  

)
 

,
!!'
,7

 !
/)
'!
!

 

!

 



 )

)
)


 !

)!



!! !






)

)  ,!


! ,!
 ,



!7
the present petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 19.04.2025 (Annexure P.1) vide which, the petitioner was declared proclaimed person and all consequential proceedings are set aside. 11.

Pending misc. applications(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.  8!&45%+%'64!"4+:

-*6#

#$#.?#+

7

+#'- ?
 +0 
@02 ?
: ,!
@02