AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 400 wordsJasjit Singh Bedi, J
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of order dated 11.10.2019 (Annexure P-5) whereby the petitioners have been declared as proclaimed persons in FIR No.99 dated 17.05.2019 registered under Sections 420, 506, 406, 467, 468, 471/120-B IPC and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professional Regulation Act, 2014 at Police Station Civil Lines Batala (Annexure P-1).
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been declared innocent during the course of the investigation and, therefore, they could not have been declared as proclaimed persons. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order be quashed.
The learned State counsel, on the other hand, while referring to the affidavit dated 27.10.2025 contends that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are correct inasmuch as the petitioners were infact declared innocent. Therefore, they ought not to have been declared as proclaimed persons and for the lapse on the part of the SHO, departmental proceedings have been initiated.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
On 26.09.2025, the following order was passed by this Court:-
“Short reply dated 25.09.2025 by way of an affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, City Batala has been filed on behalf of respondent-State by the learned State counsel and the same is taken on record.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were wrongfully declared proclaimed persons because they had been found innocent during the course of investigation as has been admitted in para 7 of the reply filed in Court today.
The learned counsel for the State seeks some time to explain this contradiction, wherein on the one hand the petitioners have been declared to be innocent and on the other hand they have been declared proclaimed persons.
Adjourned to 28.10.2025.
It is made clear that in case a proper explanation is not coming forth by the next date of hearing, the Superintendent of Police, Batala shall be personally present in Court.”
In view of the admission made on behalf of the State that there has been a lapse on the part of the investigating agency in declaring the petitioners as proclaimed persons despite their having been declared innocent, the impugned order dated 11.10.2019 (Annexure P-5) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed.
Disposed of.