The High Court of Jharkhand has clarified a critical procedural safeguard in criminal prosecutions: a proclamation issued under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is legally invalid if it fails to specify the time and place for the accused’s appearance. This ruling reinforces the foundational principle that procedural fairness is not optional but mandatory, even in cases involving absconding accused persons.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Baijnath Chauhan, was named as an accused in Tetulmari P.S. Case No. 68 of 2025. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhanbad, issued a proclamation under Section 82 of the CrPC, directing the petitioner to appear before the court. However, the order did not specify any date, time, or location for his appearance.
Procedural History
- 2025: Case registered at Tetulmari P.S. against the petitioner
- 02.01.2026: Judicial Magistrate issued proclamation under Section 82 CrPC without specifying time or place of appearance
- 10.01.2026: Petitioner filed Cr.M.P. No. 102 of 2026 before the High Court seeking quashing of the order
- 27.01.2026: High Court heard arguments and delivered judgment
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order on the ground that it violated mandatory procedural requirements under Section 82 CrPC, rendering it void ab initio.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a proclamation issued under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is valid in law if it omits the mandatory specification of time and place for the accused’s appearance.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 82 CrPC requires the Magistrate to explicitly fix a time and place for appearance in the proclamation order. Relying on the principle of audi alteram partem, he contended that an order devoid of these essential particulars denies the accused any meaningful opportunity to respond, thereby violating natural justice. He cited State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das to emphasize that procedural defects in proclamation orders render them legally unsustainable.
For the Respondent
The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the accused was expected to appear during regular court hours after 30 days of the proclamation, and that the omission was merely technical. He argued that the accused had actual notice of the case and that quashing the order would cause unnecessary delay in prosecution.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language of Section 82 CrPC, which states that the Magistrate "shall direct a proclamation to be issued" requiring the accused to appear at a "specified time and place." The Court held that the words "specified time and place" are not directory but mandatory, as their omission renders the proclamation incapable of fulfilling its legal purpose.
"If the Magistrate after being satisfied that any accused person is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest decides to issue the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., it must mention the time and place for appearance of the accused person concerned in the order itself by which such proclamation is directed to be issued."
The Court rejected the State’s argument that actual notice substitutes for statutory compliance. It emphasized that procedural compliance is non-negotiable in criminal law, particularly where the consequences of non-appearance include attachment of property and potential declaration as a proclaimed offender. The absence of time and place transforms the order from a lawful directive into an arbitrary instrument, amounting to an abuse of process.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The High Court held that the impugned order dated 02.01.2026 was void for non-compliance with Section 82 CrPC and quashed it. The Magistrate was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, specifying the time and place for appearance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must scrutinize all proclamation orders for mandatory particulars under Section 82 CrPC
- Any omission of time or place renders the order void, regardless of whether the accused had actual notice
- Applications under Section 528 B.N.S.S. 2023 can be filed to quash such defective orders
Fresh Proclamation Must Be Lawful
- Magistrates must now draft proclamations with precision: include exact date, time, court location, and duration of notice
- Defective proclamations cannot be cured by subsequent notices or oral directions
- Courts must refuse to entertain proceedings based on invalid proclamations, including attachment applications
Notice Must Be Meaningful, Not Constructive
- Actual knowledge of the case does not substitute for statutory compliance
- The law requires formal, documented notice to protect the accused’s right to be heard
- This ruling aligns with the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar on procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings
