Petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging an order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person in a matrimonial-dispute FIR. The petitioner had appeared before the trial court and furnished bail bonds; his absence was found unintentional. The proclamation order was set aside and subsequent proceedings quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM-M-1638-2024 (O&M)
-1- 2024:PHHC:014479
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
274
CRM-M-1638-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 01.02.2024
RAHUL SHARMA
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY
Present : Mr. Amit Khari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Dhruv Sihag, AAG Haryana. *****
SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL)
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 11.12.2023 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa, whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed person in case FIR No.187 dated 04.05.2022 registered under Sections 323, 506 and 34 IPC at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.
SANDAL SHARMA 2024.02.09 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-1638-2024 (O&M)
-2- 2024:PHHC:014479
petitioner has joined the trial in pursuance to the order dated 12.01.2024.
was registered against the petitioner and other persons on account of matrimonial dispute, wherein the petitioner had earlier joined the investigation and was released by the police. However, no notice was received by the petitioner qua proclamation as he had shifted his residence and proclamation has been issued in violation of Section 82 of CrPC. Therefore, in such circumstances the absence of the petitioner before trial Court could not be attributed as intentional on his part.
(SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE
01.02.2024 S.Sharma(syr) i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No
SANDAL SHARMA 2024.02.09 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
1 issue framed by the court
Was the petitioner's absence before the trial court intentional so as to justify declaring him a proclaimed person under Section 82 CrPC?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Rahul Sharma
State of Haryana
Sanjiv Berry
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
