Deepak Verma v. State of Punjab O&M) CRM
Case Details
CRM-M-60207 0207-2023(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ IN T AT CHANDIGAR PUNJAB & HARYANA IGARH 304 Deepak Kumar @ mar @ Deepak Verma Versus State of Punjab O&M) CRM-M-60207-2023 (O&M) .2025 Date of decision: 19.11.2025 ....Petitione titioner pondent ...Responden CORAM: HON
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN MAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Mr. Vipul Joshi, Advocate for the pe the petitioner. ***** Mr. Rahul K. Adia, AAG, Punjab. Mr. ***** AMAN CHAUD AUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. Prayer made in the present petitio Pray petition for quashing the order date r dated 21.09.2015, Anne Annexure P3, vide which the petitio petitioner was declared as proclaime claimed offender in FIR N FIR No.007 dated 08.01.2014 register 7, 468, egistered under Sections 420, 467, 468 471 and 120-B IP B IPC. 2. Learned counsel submits that the Lear t the petitioner was declared innocen nnocent during the invest investigation and no challan presente esented against him though the trial i trial is now going again against other co-accused but was st was still declared proclaimed offende ffender vide the impugne pugned order. He places reliance on her vs. e on Rachhpal Singh and another vs State of Punjab, njab, CRM-M-8894-2015, decided o aur vs. ided on 08.09.2015, Gurbax Kaur vs State of Punjab njab and another, CRM-M-12766 2766-2014, decided on 22.01.2015 an 15 and Gurjeet Singh J ngh Johar vs. State of Punjab and 2019, b and another, CRM-M-47872-2019 decided on 08.11. 08.11.2019. Heard. Hear This his Court in Rachhpal Singh ngh (supra), had set aside the orde e order 3. 4. ASHOK KUMAR 2025.11.21 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-60207-2023(O&M) 2 whereby the petitioners were declared proclaimed offenders, considering the fact that they have been declared innocent by the investigating agency itself. 5. In Gurbax Kaur (supra), this Court held thus, ‘From the records, I find that PO proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. are to be started when any accused, who is required in those criminal proceedings, is avoiding service. This order shows that the present petitioner Gurbax Kaur was already declared innocent during the inquiry and the statement and challan under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. have been filed. Even in the main challan, it is written that against Gurbax Kaur challan has not been filed and PO proceedings are going on. These PO proceedings have been initiated during the investigation by the Police and the Police itself is saying that PO proceedings against Gurbax Kaur be dropped, which means that she is not required for investigation etc. in this case and challan is not to be filed against her. There is nothing on the record that the Court has disagreed with this report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. or has taken the cognizance. There is also no material on the record to show that the Court has summoned Gurbax Kaur under Section 190 Cr.P.C. or under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer is saying that she is innocent and challan has not been presented against her. Therefore, in these circumstances, continuing with the PO proceedings despite the request of the SHO for dropping PO proceedings is not as per law. The mere fact that proclamation has been issued and 30 days time has passed only is not a ground for declaring the person proclaimed offender or proclaimed person. It is also clear from this impugned order dated 3.3.2014 that earlier also criminal miscellaneous application for dropping PO proceedings has been filed, which has been dismissed on 26.2.2014. All these facts show that the petitioner was not required in that case by the Investigating Officer nor there is any order that the Court has summoned the present petitioner, therefore, in these circumstances continuing the PO proceedings against Gurbax Kaur was illegal. Therefore, ASHOK KUMAR 2025.11.21 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-60207-2023(O&M) 3 finding merit in the present petition, the same is accepted. The impugned order dated 3.3.2014 vide which the present petitioner has been declared as PO is set aside.” 6. Moreover, in Gurjeet Singh Johar (supra), it was held that “This court also finds that more often then not, the police use the power of the Magistrate to issue warrant of arrest against an accused, only as a tool to avoid its responsibility to carry out the investigation to the logical end; and only for the purpose of getting such an accused declared as proclaimed offender. This methodology is normally adopted by the police just to get rid of the responsibility of putting a report before the Magistrate qua investigation, which otherwise is a mandate of law cast upon the police, or even to avoid arresting an accused in inconvenient cases or inconvenient circumstances. As a result, lots of persons are got declared as proclaimed offenders; and forgotten altogether by the police thereafter. Hence, as observed above, this court is also of the view that before the Magistrate/court has taken cognizance of any offence, the power of issuance of warrants of arrest under any provision of Cr.P.C., on an application of a police officer, cannot be invoked by the Magistrate as a routine matter. Needless to say, at the cost of repetition; that under the provisions of Cr. P. C. itself, the police have power to arrest a person without warrant even by following such a person at any place in India. Therefore, it is clear that only for arresting a person; the police do not require any warrant as such. Hence, it would not lie in the mouth of the police to allege before the Magistrate, without there being any specific reasons or any barrier in their way, that the accused is evading arrest. During investigation; even if there is some specific legal or factual obstacle or barrier, which makes the arrest without warrant impossible, and if the police intend to seek warrant of arrest from the Magistrate for such arrest, under any provision of the Cr.P.C., the police are required to specify the obstacle, which the warrant issued by the court would ASHOK KUMAR 2025.11.21 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-60207-2023(O&M) 4 remove and because of which such obstacle or the barrier in way of the police; the accused was succeeding in evading his arrest. Unless, there is any specific obstacle; because of which the police were not able to arrest; and which could not be removed by the police on their own and without the aid of the warrant of the court, the issuance of warrant of arrest by the Magistrate, only on assertion of the police that the accused was evading arrest, would be only a routine exercise, and would be only for the aid of the investigating officer, which could not be done by the Magistrate, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar (supra).” 7. Learned State counsel, despite best efforts, has not been able to controvert as regards the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned decision or cite any contrary law. 8. In view of the afore, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.09.2015, is hereby set aside. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 19.11.2025 ashok Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes / No Yes / No ASHOK KUMAR 2025.11.21 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document