The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a man who had already emigrated to Canada could not be declared a proclaimed offender based on proclamation proceedings conducted at his Indian address. Justice Rohit Kapoor quashed the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender in an alleged sexual harassment case, emphasizing that the procedure under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be strictly followed.
Passport evidence shows departure before proclamation
The court noted that the petitioner's passport established he had left for Canada on August 9, 2017, while the proclamation was allegedly effected on November 26, 2017. This made it evident that he was not present at the address where the process was carried out. Allowing the petition, Justice Kapoor asserted that a person cannot be declared a proclaimed offender unless the prescribed procedure is meticulously adhered to.
Background of the case
The petitioner sought quashing of the January 12, 2018 order passed by the Nakodar Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, which declared him a proclaimed offender in an FIR registered on May 8, 2015, at Nakodar police station in Jalandhar. The FIR was filed under Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act and Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Petitioner's submissions
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel argued that the petitioner was of tender age when the FIR was registered. He had been granted anticipatory bail and had joined the investigation. The court was informed that the petitioner's father, living in Canada, had sponsored him for immigration, leading to his departure from India on August 9, 2017.
The petitioner remained under a bona fide impression that the criminal case had been closed. It was only when his mother came to India that the family discovered he had been declared a proclaimed offender. Counsel further argued that the petitioner was never served in accordance with Section 82 CrPC, as he was not present at the given address, having already shifted to Canada. The passport placed on record supported this claim.
Procedural violations highlighted
The petitioner contended that the order declaring him a proclaimed offender was vitiated because no proper satisfaction had been recorded that he was deliberately absconding or concealing himself to evade arrest. The conditions under Section 82 CrPC for publication of a proclamation are mandatory, and proper service of warrants and notices is 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. Their statements had already been recorded pursuant to earlier court directions. The State and the complainant did not dispute the factual assertions in the petition.
Court's observations and ruling
Justice Kapoor observed that it was undisputed 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 noted.
Allowing the petition, the Bench further observed that there was force in the petitioner's submission that no legal impediment existed to quashing the FIR once the parties had finally compromised. No useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings arising out of the FIR.
