Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manish Jakhar vs State Of Haryana on 17 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006658
CRM-M-25705-2024 (O&M) -1-
235 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-25705-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 17.01.2025
MANISH JAKHAR
...Petitioner
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Kunwar Rajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG Haryana.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
petitioner prays to quash the order dated 06.12.2022 (Annexure P-17)
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samalkha (Panipat),
whereby he has been declared a proclaimed offender in case FIR No.67
dated 02.02.2019, under Sections 166, 180, 218, 420, 465, 477, 467, 468,
341 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Samalkha.
2. Following order was passed on 22.05.2024:
“By way of this petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., petitioner prays to quash the order dated 06.12.2022
(Annexure P-17) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Samalkha
(Panipat), whereby he has been declared a proclaimed offender in
case FIR No.67 dated 02.02.2019, under Sections 166, 180, 218,
420, 465, 477, 467, 468, 341 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police
Station Samalkha.
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends
that by way of impugned order apart from the petitioner, co-
accused Sikander Singh Dhillon was also declared proclaimed
offender. Said Sikander Singh Dhillon approached this Court by1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 03:22:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006658CRM-M-25705-2024 (O&M) -2-
filing CRM-M-18225-2023 and he was allowed the interim relief by
way of order dated 17.04.2023 (Annexure P-20). Later on, said
Sikander Singh Dhillon was allowed anticipatory bail vide order
dated 20.05.2024 passed in CRM-M-495-2024.
Learned Senior counsel submits that the only
difference between the case of the petitioner and that of co-accused
Sikander Singh Dhillon is that co-accused Sikander Singh Dhillon
was residing at the relevant time in United States of America;
whereas petitioner was residing at Dubai. Learned Sr. counsel
submits that petitioner is ready to join the investigation, but
apprehends that in case he surrenders before the police, he may be
arrested.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana accepts
notice on behalf of respondent-State. Copy of paper book be
supplied to him during the course of day.
Adjourned to 25.07.2024.
In the meantime, operation of the impugned order
dated 06.12.2022 (Annexure P-17) shall remain stayed, subject to
the petitioner appearing before the Investigating Agency and join
the investigation.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has
already complied with the aforementioned order dated 22.05.2024 and has
been released on regular bail by the learned trial Court and he is regularly
appearing there and he further submits that the impugned order has been
passed without following the mandate of Section 82 (1) of Cr.P.C. in its
letter and spirit by the trial Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner
undertakes to appear before the trial Court on each and every date.
2 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2025 03:22:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006658
CRM-M-25705-2024 (O&M) -3-
4. Learned State counsel on instructions from SI Srikant affirms
the aforesaid fact that petitioner has appeared before the trial Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record of the case with his able assistance and with the consent of parties,
the matter is taken up for final disposal.
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 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
3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 03:22:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006658
CRM-M-25705-2024 (O&M) -4-
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 have themselves come
forward and have undertaken to appear before the trial Court on each and
every date.
9. The impugned order dated 06.12.2022 (Annexure P-17) vide
which the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender, is hereby set aside
along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom subject to
payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the PGIMER
Chandigarh Poor Patients’ Welfare Fund, for wasting precious time of the
Court.
10. The present petition is disposed of accordingly.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
17.01.2025 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2025 03:22:38 :::
[ad_1]
Source link