The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a Punjab man, who had already left for Canada, could not have been declared a proclaimed offender on the basis of proclamation proceedings conducted at his Indian address.
The Bench also quashed the order declaring him a proclaimed offender in an alleged sexual harassment case.
The direction came after the Bench, among other things, found that his passport established he had left for Canada months before the proclamation was allegedly effected.
The High Court said the record showed the petitioner had departed for Canada on August 9, 2017, whereas the proclamation was stated to have been effected on November 26, 2017, making it evident that he was not available at the address where the process was carried out.
Allowing the petition, Justice Rohit Kapoor also asserted a person could not be declared a proclaimed offender/person unless the procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is strictly and meticulously adhered to.
The matter was placed before Justice Kapoor’s Bench after the youngster sought directions for quashing January 12, 2018 order passed by Nakodar Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender in an FIR registered on May 8, 2015, at Nakodar police station in Jalandhar under Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, and Section 354-A of the IPC.
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel submitted that the petitioner was of tender age when the FIR was registered. He had been granted anticipatory bail and had joined the investigation. The Bench was also told that the petitioner’s father was living in Canada and had sponsored him for immigration. Consequently, the petitioner left India for Canada on August 9, 2017.
The Bench was also told that the petitioner remained under a bona fide impression that the criminal case had already been closed. It was only when his mother came to India that the family discovered he had been declared a proclaimed offender.
It was further argued that the petitioner was not present at the given address because he had already shifted to Canada when he was summoned through proclamation. As such, he was never served in accordance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the CrPC evident from his passport placed on record.
The petitioner also contended that the order declaring him a proclaimed offender was vitiated as no proper satisfaction had been recorded that he was deliberately absconding or concealing himself to evade arrest.
The conditions prescribed under Section 82 CrPC for publication of a proclamation, it was argued, were mandatory and proper service of warrants and notices was required before initiating proclamation proceedings.
The High Court was also informed that the parties had entered into a compromise on December 6, 2025, and had filed a separate petition seeking quashing of the FIR, in which their statements had already been recorded pursuant to earlier directions of the court. The State as well as the complainant did not dispute the factual assertions made in the petition.
Justice Kapoor observed it was undisputed that the parties had settled the dispute and that the petitioner had already approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
“In the present case, it is evident that the petitioner was not available on the given address on the date of issuance of proclamation and therefore it cannot be said that there was proper satisfaction regarding execution of proclamation,” Justice Kapoor observed.
Allowing the petition, the Bench further observed that there was force in the petitioner’s submission that there was no legal impediment to allowing the petition seeking quashing of the FIR once the parties had finally compromised the matter and no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings arising out of the FIR.
