Harjinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J

Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.135 dated 11.05.2016, under Sections 370, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201 (added

subsequently) and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Navi Baradari, District Jalandhar, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom,

including the order dated 04.09.2017 (Annexure P-9), declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the proclamation notice dated 24.07.2017 issued by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, two

addresses of the petitioner had been mentioned, whereas in the report dated 26.07.2017 submitted by the executing police official (HC Darshan

Kumar), who executed the proclamation notice, it is mentioned that the proclamation notice had been affixed at the given address. No specific address

as to where the proclamation notice had been affixed, has been mentioned in the report dated 26.07.2017 (Annexure P-7). Therefore, declaring the

petitioner as proclaimed offender is against the spirit of Section 82 Cr.P.C. and the same is liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, the

learned counsel relies upon the decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in 'Mehar Singh vs. State of Punjab 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal)

167.

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that in his statement dated 07.08.2017 (Annexure P-8), the Executing Constable specifically stated

that he had executed the proclamation in the area of residence of the accused and had also affixed a notice at his residence.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It is the specific case of the petitioner that she is a resident of the two addresses mentioned in the proclamation notice. However, the proclamation

notice had not been executed at the given addresses. The petitioner had been declared as proclaimed offender without following the mandatory

provisions contained in Section 82 Cr.P.C.

Moreover, the objective of the coercive mechanism prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure is to ensure that the accused remains present

before the Court to receive the orders and punishments as are passed qua the accused. If the accused shows his sincere intention and desire to

appear before the Court, then it would not be unjustified to protect him from being arrested.

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 04.09.2017 (Annexure P-9) is set aside. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court

within 15 days from today. On her doing so, she shall be released on bail subject to her furnishing fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of

the trial Court.

Disposed of in the aforementioned terms.