Gurpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-48915-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 285 1 CRM-M-48915-2025 Decided on: 22.09.2025 Gurpreet Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondents CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jatin Kundu, AAG, Punjab. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 157 21.07.2018 City Moga, District Moga 406, 420, 120B IPC 1. Challenging the order of proclamation dated 02.12.2019, on being declared as a proclaimed offender, the petitioner has come up before this court under section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS]. 2. Counsel for the petitioner by making reference to para 2 of the petition submits that FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant. He further submits that petitioner is in Australia since 2015 and she was never served in Australia. 3. The accused could not be served through the ordinary process, including summons, bailable warrants, and even non-bailable warrants. The concerned court finally proceeded against the petitioner under section 82 of CrPC and declared the petitioner a proclaimed offender vide aforesaid order. 4. Counsel refers to the copy of passport that is annexed at Page 26. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that now the petitioner wants to come to India and she undertakes to appear before the trial Court as and when this Court directs to do so and on instructions counsel further submits that petitioner is voluntarily agree to donate six wheel chairs to Rural Primary Health Center, Ludhiana. ANJU RANI 2025.09.26 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 1 2 CRM-M-48915-2025 6. Be that as it may, the primary reason to quash is that the proclamation order was made when the petitioner was not in India despite affixations being made on her Indian address. 7. Another reason to quash the proclamation is the statutory provision of Section 105 CrPC. It shall be relevant to extract Section 105 of CrPC, 1973, which reads as follows: 105. Reciprocal arrangements regarding processes.— (1) Where a Court in the territories to which this Code extends (hereafter in this section referred to as the said territories) desires that— (a) a summons to an accused person, or (b) a warrant for the arrest of an accused person, or (c) a summons to any person requiring him to attend and produce a document or other thing, or to produce it, or (d) a search-warrant, issued by it shall be served or executed at any place,— (i) within the local jurisdiction of a Court in any State or area in India outside the said territories, it may send such summons or warrant in duplicate by post or otherwise, to the presiding officer of that Court to be served or executed; and where any summons referred to in clause (a) or clause (c) has been so served, the provisions of section 68 shall apply in relation to such summons as if the presiding officer of the Court to whom it is sent were a Magistrate in the said territories; (ii) in any country or place outside India in respect of which arrangements have been made by the Central Government with the Government of such country or place for service or execution of summons or warrant in relation to criminal matters (hereafter in this section referred to as the contracting State), it may send such summons or warrant in duplicate in such form, directed to such Court, Judge or Magistrate, and send to such authority for transmission, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf.] (2) Where a Court in the said territories has received for service or execution— (a) a summons to an accused person, or (b) a warrant for the arrest of an accused person, or (c) a summons to any person requiring him to attend and produce a document or other thing, or to produce it, or (d) a search-warrant, issued by— (I) a Court in any State or area in India outside the said territories; (II) a Court, Judge or Magistrate in a contracting State, it shall cause the same to be served or executed] as if it were a summons or warrant received by it from another Court in the said territories for service or execution within its local jurisdiction; and where— (i) a warrant of arrest has been executed, the person arrested shall, so far as possible, be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed by sections 80 and 81, (ii) a search-warrant has been executed, the things found in the search shall, so far as possible, be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed by section 101: [Provided that in a case where a summons or search-warrant received from a contracting State has been executed, the documents or things produced or things found in the search shall 2 ANJU RANI 2025.09.26 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-48915-2025 be forwarded to the Court issuing the summons or search-warrant through such authority as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf. 8. Thus, there is nothing to demonstrate that the State had either complied with the statutory provisions of Section 105 CrPC or were not required to comply with such provisions. 9. A perusal of the said statement reveals that the prosecution is not complying with the provisions of Section 82 & 105 CrPC. Section 82 CrPC provides that affixation must be made where the petitioner resides. Given above, the proclamation was not affixed in terms of section 82 (2) (i) (a) & (b) of CrPC, which mandate that the proclamation shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; and it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village. None of these conditions were complied with, and the non- adherence to the procedure has rendered the proclamation illegal. 10. Given the above, continuing these proceedings will not serve any fruitful purpose. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the Court invokes the inherent jurisdiction under section 528 BNSS 2023 and quashes the order dated 02.12.2019, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga, and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner. 11. Given the petitioner’s undertaking, petitioner shall purchase six wheel chairs of good quality and hand it over to the Chief Medical Officer, Ludhiana to distribute the same to the Rural Primary Health Center(s), Ludhiana and petitioner’s counsel shall hand over its receipt to the trial court. 12. Petitioner’s counsel submits that she will appear before the trial Court, and they be given reasonable time to appear. It is clarified that because as of date the petitioner is aware of the proclamation and filing of the present petition, as such let the petitioner appear before the concerned Court on or before 03.11.2025. Counsel for the petitioner shall inform the petitioner about the directions of this Court to make an appearance before the concerned trial Court. Given the statement made by the petitioner’s counsel, they shall deem to have been informed about this order. It is clarified that if the petitioner fails to appear, then this order shall stand recalled automatically without any further reference to this Court resorting to Section 403 r/w 528 BNSS 2023, for the reason that this Court has intervened without even getting a response from the State Government and the State Government did not insist to the filing of the response because of the statement ANJU RANI 2025.09.26 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 3 4 CRM-M-48915-2025 made on behalf of the petitioner that she shall put in an appearance before the concerned Court. 13. In the entirety of facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the present petition is allowed, and proclamation order is quashed and set aside, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall appear before the concerned trial Court on or before 03.11.2025 and avail her legal remedy. The lookout circular (LOC) and non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner in the abovementioned FIR shall remain stayed until 03.11.2025 to enable the petitioner to travel to India. It is important to note that this Court, while not fully satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner due to their awareness of the pending case and the issuance of the proclamation, has taken a lenient view. This leniency is extended to allow the petitioner to appear before the concerned trial Court. This order is subject to appearance before the trial Court by the given date. In case of failure, this order stand recalled automatically. All pending miscellaneous
Decision
applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 22.09.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes NO. Whether reportable: ANJU RANI 2025.09.26 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 4