The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that procedural compliance under Section 82(2) of the CrPC is not optional but mandatory, and any failure to publicly read a proclamation renders it a nullity. This judgment provides critical clarity for practitioners handling non-bailable warrants and proclaimed offender proceedings, emphasizing that technical lapses cannot be overlooked even when accused claim non-wilful absence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Vaibhav Vohra and another, were named accused in a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Complaint No. NACT-164-2021, dated 12.05.2021). They were initially granted bail and appeared regularly before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Derabassi, until a series of absences triggered proceedings against them.
Key Facts
- The petitioners were summoned and appeared before the trial court on all dates from initiation until October 2024.
- On 16.10.2024, 08.08.2025, and 05.09.2025, the petitioners failed to appear due to medical exigency - petitioner No.1 suffering a spinal cord injury, supported by medical records (Annexure P-2).
- An application seeking exemption from personal appearance on medical grounds was filed but rejected.
- On 26.11.2025, the petitioners could not appear due to the death of the grandfather of petitioner No.1’s wife. Their counsel appeared on all these dates.
- On 26.11.2025, non-bailable warrants were issued, bail was cancelled, and surety bonds forfeited.
- On 20.02.2026, the trial court declared the petitioners as proclaimed persons under Section 82 CrPC.
- The proclamation order was not read in any public place as required under Section 82(2) CrPC.
- The petitioners were never served with a copy of the proclamation order.
- The petitioners are ready to surrender and continue proceedings.
Procedural History
- 12.05.2021: Complaint filed under Section 138 NI Act.
- Prior to 16.10.2024: Petitioners regularly appeared before trial court.
- 16.10.2024, 08.08.2025, 05.09.2025: Petitioners absent due to medical reasons; counsel appeared.
- 26.11.2025: Non-bailable warrants issued; bail cancelled and bonds forfeited.
- 20.02.2026: Trial Court declared petitioners as proclaimed persons without public reading of proclamation.
- 16.04.2026: Writ petition filed before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the proclamation order dated 20.02.2026, restoration of their bail status, and one final opportunity to surrender before the trial court without prejudice.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a proclamation under Section 82(2) CrPC remains valid if the order is not read publicly in a conspicuous place in the accused’s ordinary place of residence, and whether such non-compliance constitutes a mere irregularity or renders the proceeding a nullity.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel argued that the petitioners’ absence was neither wilful nor deliberate, supported by medical evidence and a family emergency. They submitted that the proclamation order dated 20.02.2026 was procedurally invalid because it was never read in public as mandated by Section 82(2) CrPC, citing Gurbir Singh Mundi and Sonu v. State of Haryana. They emphasized that the purpose of proclamation - securing presence - would be better served by granting them an opportunity to surrender rather than perpetuating a legally defective order.
For the Respondent
The Additional Advocate General for Punjab accepted notice and contended that the petitioners’ repeated absences, even with counsel appearing, amounted to deliberate evasion. The State argued that the trial court’s order was lawful and that the petitioners had exhausted all procedural remedies. It maintained that the failure to read the proclamation was a minor lapse and did not invalidate the entire proceeding.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the mandatory nature of Section 82(2) CrPC, which requires that a proclamation order be read in a conspicuous place in the town or village where the accused ordinarily resides. The Court held that this requirement is not a formality but a substantive condition for the validity of the proclamation.
"The provisions of Section 82(2) Cr.P.C. are to be mandatorily complied with cumulatively and not alternatively."
Citing Gurbir Singh Mundi, the Court reiterated that non-compliance with public reading renders the proclamation void ab initio. Further, relying on Sonu v. State of Haryana, the Court observed:
"Any non-compliance in the procedure prescribed in declaring a proclaimed person, cannot be treated as an irregularity but the same renders such proceedings a nullity."
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the petitioners’ conduct justified the procedural lapse. It noted that the petitioners had appeared regularly, submitted medical evidence, and their counsel was present on all dates of absence. The Court emphasized that the purpose of proclamation is to secure presence, not to punish technical non-compliance. Granting an opportunity to surrender would serve the ends of justice and expedite trial, without prejudice to the prosecution.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The High Court set aside the proclamation order dated 20.02.2026. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the trial court on or before 01.05.2026. Each petitioner must deposit Rs. 10,000/- as costs with the Day Care Centre for Elderly Disabled, Sector-15, Chandigarh (Account No. 0537010195720, IFSC: PUNB0008700, Punjab National Bank, Sector 17-B). They must also furnish a sworn affidavit undertaking to appear on every hearing date unless exempted by the court, and not leave the country without prior permission. The trial court may impose additional conditions. Failure to comply will result in the petition being deemed dismissed without further reference.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Proclamation Is Null Without Public Reading
- Practitioners must immediately challenge any proclamation order where public reading is not proven by affidavit or official record.
- Courts cannot validate proclamations on grounds of accused’s conduct if statutory procedure under Section 82(2) CrPC is violated.
Medical Absences Do Not Automatically Constitute Evasion
- Absences supported by credible medical documentation, coupled with counsel’s appearance, cannot be treated as wilful evasion.
- Trial courts must consider medical hardship before issuing non-bailable warrants or cancelling bail.
Courts Must Balance Procedure and Justice
-
The High Court’s directive to surrender within a fixed deadline, coupled with cost deposit and affidavit, sets a new standard for remedial justice.
-
This approach avoids punitive outcomes while preserving prosecutorial rights - a model for similar cases involving technical non-compliance.
-
Always verify compliance with Section 82(2) CrPC in every proclamation case before filing or opposing.
-
File applications for exemption from personal appearance with medical records at the earliest opportunity.
-
If a proclamation is issued without public reading, move for quashing immediately - the order is void, not merely irregular.
