The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that strict compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not optional but essential to validate a proclamation against an accused. The judgment underscores that failure to adhere to these procedures, even if unintentional, nullifies the entire legal process, reinforcing the principle that due process is non-negotiable in criminal jurisprudence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Gurvinder Singh, was declared a proclaimed person by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, in two complaint cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Cases No. NACT-4729 and 4730/2022, dated 30.07.2022). The declaration was made on 12.09.2023 after the trial court concluded that the petitioner had absconded and failed to appear despite issuance of summons.
Key Facts
- The petitioner had previously operated his business at an address in Chandigarh, which was cited in the complaint
- In or around 2021, the petitioner shifted his place of business to Property No. 2053/18, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Near Mohall Fatehganj, Ludhiana
- The complaint and summons were served at the old Chandigarh address, despite the petitioner’s relocation
- The petitioner submitted documentary evidence (Annexures P4 to P8) proving the change of address, including rental agreements, utility bills, and business correspondence
- No attempt was made by the trial court to verify the petitioner’s current residence or serve summons at the new address
- The proclamation was issued under Section 82 CrPC without fulfilling the mandatory conditions of public notice or personal service
Procedural History
- 30.07.2022: Complaints filed under Section 138 NI Act before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh
- Between August - September 2022: Summons issued to the old Chandigarh address; no response received
- 12.09.2023: Judicial Magistrate declared petitioner a proclaimed person under Section 82 CrPC
- 24.03.2026: Petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court seeking quashing of the proclamation order
- 02.04.2026: Hearing before the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the proclamation order dated 12.09.2023, setting aside his status as a proclaimed person, and an opportunity to surrender before the trial court and continue the proceedings.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a proclamation issued under Section 82 CrPC remains valid when the accused has shifted residence and the authorities have failed to serve notice at the new address or comply with the mandatory public notice requirement.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the declaration as a proclaimed person was procedurally invalid because the trial court failed to comply with the cumulative requirements of Section 82(2) CrPC, which mandates both personal service and public notice in a conspicuous place. He cited Annexures P4 - P8 as proof of relocation and emphasized that the petitioner had no intention to evade justice. He submitted that the petitioner was ready to surrender and participate in the trial if given a fair opportunity.
For the Respondent
The Additional Public Prosecutor for UT Chandigarh contended that the petitioner’s prolonged absence from proceedings, despite summons, justified the proclamation. He argued that the petitioner’s failure to update his address with the court or inform the complainant amounted to deliberate avoidance.
The counsel for respondent No. 2 (the complainant) had no objection to setting aside the proclamation, acknowledging the procedural lapse.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the mandatory nature of Section 82 CrPC and relied on three prior judgments to establish the legal standard. In Gurbir Singh Mundi v. State of Punjab, this Court held that the requirements under Section 82(2) CrPC must be complied with cumulatively, not alternatively. The failure to read the proclamation in a conspicuous place rendered the order void.
"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 further relied on Sonu v. State of Haryana, which held that procedural non-compliance under Section 82 CrPC is not a mere technicality but a jurisdictional defect. The Court then applied Satish Chouhan v. State of Punjab, where it was held that serving a proclamation at an old address, after the accused had sold the property and relocated, was not due service.
The Court rejected the argument that the petitioner’s absence was wilful. It noted the documentary evidence of relocation and the absence of any attempt by the prosecution or court to verify the petitioner’s current whereabouts. The Court emphasized that the purpose of proclamation is not punishment but to secure presence for trial, and that the ends of justice would be better served by allowing the petitioner to rejoin proceedings.
The Verdict
The petitions were allowed. The impugned proclamation order dated 12.09.2023 was set aside. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court on or before 15.04.2026. He must deposit Rs. 10,000 in each case (total Rs. 20,000) as costs with two specified charitable trusts. He must furnish bail/surety bonds and submit an affidavit undertaking to appear on all hearing dates unless exempted by the court, and not leave the country without prior permission. The trial court may impose additional conditions as appropriate. Failure to comply will result in automatic dismissal of the petitions without further reference to this Court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Proclamation Is Not a Substitute for Due Process
- Practitioners must now argue that any failure to serve notice at the last known or verified address, or to publish the proclamation publicly, renders the order null and void
- Courts cannot presume wilful evasion based solely on non-appearance if the accused has relocated and provided proof
- Prosecution bears the burden of proving that all reasonable efforts were made to locate and serve the accused
Relocation Must Be Actively Verified
- Law enforcement and trial courts must proactively verify changes in address through utility records, property documents, or third-party verification
- Merely relying on the address in the complaint or FIR is insufficient if there is credible evidence of relocation
- Failure to update records or conduct due diligence cannot be used to justify procedural shortcuts
Opportunity to Surrender Is a Right, Not a Favor
- Courts must consider willingness to surrender as a mitigating factor before upholding a proclamation
- Granting a final opportunity to join proceedings aligns with the principle of fair trial under Article 21
- Proclamation should be a last resort, not the first step in criminal procedure
