Rajesh Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 23 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajesh Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 23 February, 2024

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:025350




                                                                2024:PHHC:025350

126        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                                 CRM-M-9725-2024
                                                 Date of decision: 23.02.2024

RAJESH SHARMA
                                                                ...PETITIONER
                            V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                                ...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:     None.

                     ****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL)

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

seeking quashing of impugned order dated 20.04.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed

in case bearing FIR No.087 dated 23.02.2015 (Annexure P-1) registered under

Sections 323, 341, 506, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code (Section 452 IPC

added later on) at Police Station Focal Point, District Ludhiana, whereby the

petitioner has been declared as ‘proclaimed person’.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution are that on

22.02.2015 at about 10:30 PM, all accused persons in connivance with each

other, forcibly entered into the house of the complainant and caused injuries to

him and his friend Lakhbir Singh with blunt weapons and also intimidated

them with life threats. Hence, the FIR was registered.

3. In view of the resolution passed by Bar Association of Punjab and

Haryana High Court, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

4. A perusal of the pleadings shows that mandate of Section 82 of

Cr.P.C. has not been followed in its letter and spirit by the trial Court and

similarly situated co-accused of the petitioner, who faced the trial, have already

been acquitted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 02.01.2024

1 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2024 20:37:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:025350

CRM-M-9725-2024 2 2024:PHHC:025350

(Annexure P-7). It is also submitted in the pleadings that the petitioner

undertakes to appear before the trial Court on each and every date.

5. Notice of motion.

6. 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.

7. 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. In the judgment passed by this Court in Sonu Vs. State of Haryana

2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 319, it has been held that the conditions specified in

Section 82 (2) Cr.P.C. for the publication of a proclamation against an

absconder are mandatory. Any non-compliance therewith cannot be cured as an

‘irregularity’ and renders the proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto

a nullity.

8. 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 come forward and has undertaken to

appear before the trial Court on each and every date.



                                     2 of 3
                  ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2024 20:37:23 :::
                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:025350




CRM-M-9725-2024                                   3                  2024:PHHC:025350

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present

petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 20.04.2021 (Annexure P-2) vide

which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person is quashed.

10. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within a

period of 02 weeks from today and on his doing so, he shall be admitted to bail

on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial

Court, along with costs of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited with the Poor Patients

Welfare Funds, PGIMER, Chandigarh for wasting precious time of the Court.





                                                      (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
February 23, 2024                                           JUDGE
manisha

            (i)     Whether speaking/reasoned                    Yes/No

            (ii)    Whether reportable                           Yes/No




                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:025350

                                         3 of 3
                   ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2024 20:37:23 :::
 

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

VISHAL SAINI ADVOCATE