Paramjit Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Another on 22 January, 2025

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Paramjit Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Another on 22 January, 2025

Author: Karamjit Singh

Bench: Karamjit Singh

                                Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009005




CRM-M-3793-2024                     [1]



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                 CRM-M-3793-2024
                                                 Date of decision: 22.01.2025

Paramjit Singh and another                                         ...Petitioners

                                        Versus

State of Punjab and another                                      ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH

Present:    Mr. Navjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

            Mr. J.S. Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab.

            Ms. Manisha Nehra, Advocate for respondent No.2.

            ****

KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 30.05.2017 Annexure
P-8 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala vide which
the petitioners were declared as proclaimed offenders in criminal complaint
No.79 dated 11.12.2008 Annexure P-1 titled Surinder Kumar Vs. Narinder
Singh and others, under Sections 307, 323, 324, 341, 452, 427, 447, 506,
120-B IPC read with Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act.

2. The counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that the
impugned order Annexure P-8 is not sustainable, as the same was not
passed in accordance with provisions of Sections 82 and 105 of Cr.P.C.
That minimum period of 30 days was not provided to the petitioners to
appear before the Court concerned from the date of publication of
proclamation which was effected on 29.05.2017, whereas the petitioner were
declared as proclaimed person on the very next day of the publications i.e.
30.05.2017. The counsel for the petitioners while referring to zimni order
dated 31.01.2017 which is reproduced in the instant petition, submits that at
the relevant time, the petitioners were residing in a foreign country. That in

1 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 24-01-2025 02:19:52 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009005

CRM-M-3793-2024 [2]

the present case, no notice, summons or warrants were ever issued to the
petitioners through Indian Embassy, situated in the said country and even
on this ground, the impugned order is not sustainable.

3. The counsel appearing on behalf of the complaint/respondent
No.2 submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order
Annexure P-8. That the petitioners were fully aware about the pendency of
the criminal complaint filed by respondent No.2 against them. The
petitioners were intentionally avoiding their service and finally, publication
of the proclamation was got effected through newspaper. That proper
procedure was followed by the Court concerned while passing order
Annexure P-8.

4. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
parties.

5. It has been brought to the notice of the Court by the counsel for
the petitioners that even now, the petitioners are permanent residents of
Canada. From the perusal of zimni order dated 31.01.2017 passed by the
Court concerned, it appears that the said Court received report to the effect
that the petitioners have gone abroad and not residing at the given address.
Subsequently, on the basis of the said report, the Court concerned passed
order dated 01.05.2017 to summon the petitioners through publication in
daily English newspaper ‘The Tribune’ for 29.05.2017. The said order is
also reproduced in the instant petition. From the perusal of impugned order
Annexure P-8, it appears that the proclamation of the petitioners was
published in the concerned newspaper, in the light of aforesaid order dated
01.05.2017 passed by the Court concerned. It was public holiday on
29.05.2017. So, the case was taken up on 30.05.2017 and on the same day,
impugned order Annexure P-8 was passed. There is nothing on the record to
show that any notice, summon or warrant was ever sent to the petitioners
through Indian Embassy, situated in Canada where the petitioners were
residing at the relevant time. Thus, in this case proclamation proceedings
were carried out by the Court concerned in violation of the provision of
Section 105 Cr.P.C. Further, from the perusal of order dated 01.05.2017 and
30.05.2017, it appears that prescribed period of 30 days was not provided to

2 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 24-01-2025 02:19:53 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009005

CRM-M-3793-2024 [3]

the petitioners from the date of publication of proclamation, for their
appearance before the Court concerned, as per the mandate of Section 82
Cr.P.C. In the given circumstances, the impugned order Annexure P-8 is not
legally tenable and deserves to be set aside.

6. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed about 7 years back.
The petitioners deserve to be burdened with cost as they have approached
this Court after delay of more than 7 years.

7. In light of the above, the present petition is allowed and order
dated 30.05.2017 Annexure P-8 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate
Ist Class, Patiala is quashed, subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited
by the petitioners with the District Legal Services Authority concerned
within a period of 20 days with effect from today.

22.01.2025                                            (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh                                                    JUDGE

             Whether speaking/reasoned:-              Yes/No
             Whether reportable:-                     Yes/No




                                3 of 3
             ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2025 02:19:53 :::