Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; the order dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure P-6) and the order dated 05.07.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Amritsar in case CHI/1352/2019 (FIR No.0049 dated 07.05.2017) declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person, as well as the other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proclamation issued against the petitioner and the orders dated 31.10.2023 and 05.07.2025 declaring him a proclaimed person complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C., 1973, including recording of the serving official's statement, a clear 30-day notice, and the prescribed modes of publication. +2 more

Court's answer

It is mandatory under Section 82 Cr.P.C. to record the statement of the serving official and issue a clear 30-day notice before declaring an accused a proclaimed person; the serving official reported effecting the proclamation on 02.04.2023, yet on 31.10.2023 the Court declared the petitioner a proclaimed person without ensuring compliance with the statutory mandate, making the entire process a mere formality reflecting a mechanical and perfunctory approach.

Ratio / Principle

The Judicial Magistrate committed gross illegality by issuing the proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 without complying with the mandatory requirements of law; the course adopted is antithetical to Section 82, is not sustainable, and its continuation would amount to abuse of process of law.

Key takeaways

No lawful attempt was made to serve the petitioner at his overseas address despite knowledge of his foreign residence; the Magistrate wrongly presumed that service stood effected merely on the report of the serving official, without verifying actual compliance.ratio¶17
On the petitioner's case before this Court that he never resided at the address given by the police, he was never served with any warrants before issuance of the proclamation against him.ratio¶53
The impugned orders dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure P-6) and 05.07.2025 relied solely on the statement of the serving official to hold that the proclamation was effected; the Judicial Magistrate was totally oblivious of the police service report of proclamation, whereas the proclamation had to be published in the manner laid down in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh | CRM-M-38628-2025 | Decided 12.09.2025 | Sumeet Goel, J. (Oral). Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 by Bhupinder Singh seeking quashing of the order dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure P-6) of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Amritsar in case CHI/1352/2019 (FIR No.0049 dated 07.05.2017, PS Kathu Nangal, District Amritsar Rural; IPC Sections 341, 324, 323, 506, 34, with 326 and 201 added later) declaring him a proclaimed person under Section 82 Cr.P.C., 1973, together with consequential proceedings, and of the further order dated 05.07.2025 (Annexure P-8) repeating the declaration. Held: (i) Section 82 mandatorily requires recording of the serving official's statement and a clear 30-day notice before declaring an accused a proclaimed person — the serving official reported effecting proclamation on 02.04.2023, yet the declaration followed on 31.10.2023 without ensured compliance, the whole process being a mere formality; (ii) the issuing Court must record satisfaction, on cogent material, that the accused is absconding or concealing himself — the JMIC's orders were conspicuously silent, striking at the root of the proceedings; (iii) no lawful attempt was made to serve the petitioner at his known overseas address, service being presumed solely on the serving official's report while the police service report and the conjunctive publication modes of Section 82(2) were ignored; (iv) following the coordinate-Bench guidelines in Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319, such non-compliance cannot be cured as an irregularity, renders the proclamation defective, without jurisdiction and a nullity, and vitiates subsequent proceedings. Contextual facts: petitioner earlier placed in Column No. 2 of the Section 173 report (challan against two co-accused), summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on 23.05.2022, and having since joined the investigation. Result: petition allowed; both proclamation orders and consequential proceedings quashed, recourse also had to Section 482 Cr.P.C. to terminate the criminal proceedings; pending applications disposed of.

CRM-M-38628-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

114 CRM-M-38628-2025 Date of decision: 12.09.2025

Bhupind e r Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of P unjab and another ....Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: Mr. Jagjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, A A G Punjab.

Mr. Atinderpal Singh, Advo c ate for respondent No.2. *****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

Present petition has been f i led under Section 528 of BN S S, 2023, se e king quashing of order dated 3 1.10.2023 (Annexure P-6), pas s ed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Amritsar in case CHI/135 2 /2019 titled as State of Punja b vs. Kulwinder Singh Etc. in F IR No.0049 dated 07.05.2017 registered un d er Sections 341, 324, 323, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (offences u n der Sections 326 and 201 of I PC added la t er on) at Police Station Kath u Nangal, District Amritsar Ru r al, whereby t he petitioner was declared pro c laimed person, as well as the ot h er conseque n tial proceedings arising therefr o m. 2. While assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitione r has iterated that the order dec l aring the petitioner as proclai m ed person is not sustainable and is liable t o be set-aside. It has been furt h er iterated t h at the Court below, blatantly v i olating provisions of Cr.P.C., 1 9 73 straightw a y proceeded to issue non-bail a ble warrants despite the fact t hat AJAY KUMAR petitione r was not residing in India at th a t time. It is further argued that no 2025.09.15 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-38628-2025 2

effective steps were taken in the case to serve the petitioner with warr a nts before is s uance of proclamation against him. It has been further iter a ted that the i mpugned order has been pas s ed based on fabricated and f a lse reports. It is respectfully submitted by the learned counsel that the petitione r was neither personally served w ith any notice nor was any process ever pro p erly executed or communicate d to him. Learned counsel ass e rts that the i mpugned order has been pas s ed in violation of the mandat o ry provisions of the Code of Criminal Proce d ure, 1973. It has been argued t hat the inabi l ity of the petitioner to join t h e proceedings was not deliber a te. Learned c ounsel asserts that the impugn e d order is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and unsu s tainable in the eyes of law and is, therefore, liable to be set-as i de. Moreove r , once the Court below was ma d e aware of the foreign residenc e of the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the concerned authority to ef f ect service u p on the petitioner at his overse a s address, in accordance with the procedur e mandated under the law. Fu r thermore, the Court below, w h ile passing t h e impugned order, has failed to adopt the procedure envisa g ed under th e law thereby vitiating the ent i re process. Hence, the impug n ed order de c laring the petitioner a procla i med person is unsustainable a nd deserves t o be set-aside. 3. Learned State counsel has o pposed the claim of the petitio n er seeking q uashing of the order declaring t he petitioner as proclaimed per s on in the ca s e. While refuting the case o f the petitioner, detailed argum e nts concerni n g the merits of the case were m a de and it is argued that the offe n ce alleged a g ainst the petitioner is serious a n d heinous. Referring to the s h ort AJAY KUMAR reply fil e d by way of affidavit of D harminder Kalyan, PPS, Dep u ty 2025.09.15 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-38628-2025 3

Superint e ndent of Police, Sub-division Majitha Amritsar (Rural), lear n ed State co u nsel has submitted that the Po l ice has conducted fair and pro p er investiga t ion and after completion of th e same, final report under Sect i on 173 of C r.P.C., 1973 was presented before the competent Court of jurisdicti o n. Furthermore, it has bee n submitted by the learned S t ate counsel t h at the petitioner was served th r ough non-bailable warrants but he did not a p pear which compelled the Cou r t below to declare him proclai m ed person vi d e impugned order. Instead of surrendering before the compe t ent Court, th e petitioner has chosen to file the instant petition which cle a rly reflects h is conduct that he was fully a ware of the proceedings and the coercive measures undertaken by the C o urt below to secure his prese n ce. Moreove r , it has been stated that the learned Court below followed the procedur e as laid-down under Section 8 2 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in letter a nd spirit and no discrepancy whatsoever is fo rthcoming from the records of the case.

I have heard the learned c ounsel for the rival parties a nd carefully perused the record of the case. 5. The facts of the present case disclose serious proced u ral irregulari t ies on the part of the Trial Cou r t. It is mandatory under Section 82 Cr.P.C. t o record the statement of the s e rving official and issue a clear 30 days’ not i ce before declaring an accused a proclaimed person. In the ins t ant case, the s erving official merely stated th a t he had effected the proclamat i on on 02.0 4 .2023, yet on 31.10.2023 the Court declared the petitione r a proclaim e d person without ensuring com p liance with the statutory mand a te. AJAY KUMAR The enti r e process was a mere formality, reflecting a mechanical a nd 2025.09.15 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-38628-2025 4

perfunct o ry approach in disregard of p rocedural safeguards. No la w ful attempt w as made to serve the petition e r at his overseas address des p ite knowled g e of his foreign residence. The Magistrate wrongly presumed t hat service s t ood effected merely on the report of the serving official, with o ut verifying actual compliance. Significantly, the petitioner had earlier b e en shown in n ocent and placed in Column N o . 2 of the report under Section 1 73 Cr.P.C., w ith challan filed only against t wo co-accused. Subsequently, the petitione r was summoned under Secti o n 319 Cr.P.C. vide order d a ted 23.05.20 2 2. Even more irregular is th e fact that, despite the petitio n er having a lready been declared a proc l aimed person vide order d a ted 31.10.20 2 3 (Annexure P-6), the Tri a l Court again, by order d a ted 05.07.20 2 5 (Annexure P-8), declared hi m a proclaimed person. Both or d ers rest sole l y on the report of the servi n g official and a presumption of abscondi n g, without due compliance w i th Section 82 Cr.P.C. Hence, the impugne d orders are patently unsustaina b le in law. 6. I find the course adopte d by the Judicial Magistrate, as antithesis to the provisions of Section 82 o f the Code of Criminal Proced u re, 1973. T h e learned Judicial Magistrate has committed gross illegality by issuing t h e said proclamation under Sec t ion 82 of the Criminal Proced u re Code, 1973, without complying with the mandatory requirements of l a w. Hence, t h e same is not sustainable in la w and continuation of the same w ill amount t o abuse of process of law. Se c tion 82 of the Criminal Proced u re Code, 19 7 3 reads as under:

“82. Proclamation for person absconding. - (1) If any Court has re a son to believe (whether after taking e vidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issue d by it has absconded or is concea l ing

AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.15 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-38628-2025

5

himself so that such warrant can n ot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring h im to appear at a specified place an d at a specified time not less than thi r ty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.

(2) The proclamation shall be pu b lished as follows: -

(i)(a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the tow n or village in which such person ordi n arily resides; (b) it shall be affixed to some co n spicuous part of the house or homes t ead in which such person ordinarily r esides or to some conspicuous plac e of such town or village;

(c) a copy thereof shall be affixe d to some conspicuous part of the courthouse;

(ii) the Court may also, if it think s fit, direct a copy of the proclamatio n to be published in a daily newspap e r circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.

(3) A statement in writing by th e Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was d uly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause (i) o f sub-section (2), shall be conclu s ive evidence that the requirements o f this Section have been complied w ith, and that the proclamation was pu b lished on such day. [(4) Where a proclamation publi s hed under sub-section (1) is in respe c t of a person accused of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 304, 3 64, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 39 6 , 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 4 59, or 460 of the Indian Penal Cod e (45 of 1860), and such person fail s to appear at the specified place an d time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such i n quiry as it thinks fit, pronounce hi m a proclaimed offender and make a d eclaration to that effect. (5) The provisions of sub-section s (2) and (3) shall apply to a declara t ion made by the Court under sub-sec t ion (4) as they apply to the proclama t ion published under sub-section (1).] ”

A coordinate Bench of this C ourt while dealing with invocat i on of the pr o vision of Section 82 of the Cod e of Criminal Procedure, agains t an accused i n the case of ‘ Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319’ , hel d as under:

“9. The essential requirements of section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for issuance and publication of p ro clamation against an absconder and

AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.15 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-38628-2025

6

declaring him as proclaimed person/offender may be summarize d as under:(i) Prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court is sine qua non for issuance and publication of the p roclamation and the Court has to f irst issue warrant of arrest against th e person concerned. (See Rohit Kum a r v. State of Delhi: 2008 Crl. J. 2561) .

(ii) There must be a report befor e the Court that the person against w h om warrant was issued had abscond e d or had been concealing himself so t hat the warrant of arrest could not be executed against him. However, the Court is not bound to take ev i dence in this regard before issuin g a Proclamation under section 82(1 ) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. (See Rohit Ku m ar v. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 25 6 1).

(iii) The Court cannot issue the Proclamation as a matter of co u rse because the Police is asking for i t . The Court must be prima facie satis f ied that the person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the war r ant of arrest, previously issued, c a nnot be executed, despite reason a ble diligence. (See BishundayalMah t on and others v. Emperor : AIR 1 9 43 Patna 366 and Devender Sing h Negi v. State of U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783).

(iv) The requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the proclamation requiring such p e rson to appear on such date at the specified place. Such date must n ot be less than 30 clear days from the date of issuance and publication o f the proclamation. (See Gurappa G u gal and others v. State of Mysore : 1 9 69 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali v. Stat e of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (CRIMIN A L) 339).

(v) Where the period betwe e n issuance and publication of the proclamation and the specified d a te of hearing is less than thirty days, the accused cannot be declared a proclaimed person/offender and the proclamation has to be issued an d published again. (See Dilbagh Sin g h v. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) RCR (CRIMINAL) 166 and A s hok Kumar v. State of Haryana and a n other : 2013 (4) RCR (CRIMINAL) 5 50) (vi) The Proclamation has to b e published in the manner laid dow n in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. For publication the proclamation h a s to be first publicly read in some co n spicuous place of the town or villag e in which the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixe d to some conspicuous part of the h o use or homestead in which the acc u sed ordinarily resides or to some co n spicuous place of such town or vil l age and thereafter a copy of the p r oclamation has to be affixed to s o me conspicuous part of the Court- h ouse. The three sub-clauses (a)- (c ) in

AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.15 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-38628-2025

7

section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 are conjunctive and not disjunc t ive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclama t ion unless all the three modes of pu b lication are proved. (See Pawan Ku m ar Gupta v. The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368). Where the Court so or d ers a copy of the proclamation has to be additionally published in a d aily newspaper circulating in the p lace in which the accused ordin a rily resides. Advisably, proclamation h as to be issued with four copies so t hat one each of the three copies of t h e proclamation may be affixed to s o me conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the acc u sed ordinarily resides, to some consp i cuous place of such town or village and to some conspicuous part of the Courthouse and report regar d ing publication may be made on the fourth copy of the proclamat i on. Additional copy will be required where the proclamation is also requ i red to be published in the newspaper.

(vii) Statement of the serving offi c er has to be recorded by the Court a s to the date and mode of publicatio n of the proclamation. (See Birad Dan v. State: 1958 CriLJ 965).

(viii) The Court issuing the pr o clamation has to make a statemen t in writing in its order that the p roclamation was duly published o n a specified day in a manner specifi e d in section 82(2)(i) of the Cr.P.C., 1 9 73. Such statement in writing by t h e Court is declared to be conclu s ive evidence that the requirements o f Section 82 have been complied with and that the proclamation was publis h ed on such day. (See Birad Dan v. St a te: 1958 CriLJ 965). (xi) The conditions specified in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for the publication of a Proclamation a g ainst an absconder are mandatory. A ny non-compliance therewith cannot be cured as an 'irregularity' and ren d ers the Proclamation and proceedi n gs subsequent thereto a nullity. ( See Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu v. State of U.P. and another: 1994 C r iLJ 1783 and Pal Singh v. The State: 1 955 CriLJ 318). ”

In view of the provisions o f above quoted Section 82 of the Code of C riminal Procedure and the aut h oritative judgment interpreting the applicabi l ity of the provisions of Sect i on 82 of the Code of Crim i nal Procedur e , the issuance of proclamation in the present case is clearly n ot sustainab l e. The impugned order date d 31.10.2023 (Annexure P-6) a nd

AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.15 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-38628-2025 8

order da t ed 05.07.2025 vide which th e petitioner has been declare d a proclaim e d person under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Proced u re, 1973 (Cr . P.C.), deserves to be set aside as they are vitiated by proced u ral irregulari t ies and non-compliance with m andatory statutory requirement s . A perusal o f the sequence of events leading to the issuance of the proclamation reveals t h at the Ld. Judicial Magistrate Fi r st Class (JMIC) failed to adher e to the strict procedural safeguards enshrined under Section 82 of the Cr.P . C., thereby r e ndering the declaration non es t in law. The genesis of the ma t ter lies in the order dated 24.08.2022, wh e rein the Ld. JMIC noted that the petitione r /accused had failed to appe a r before the Court and, a s a conseque n ce, the Court held that the p etitioner/accused was delibera t ely evading the service and hence issu e d coercive steps. Finally, on 31.10.20 2 3, the Ld. JMIC proceeded to note that more than 30 days h ad elapsed s i nce the proclamation of accus e d but he did not appear and w as thus, inte n tionally avoiding the proceedi n gs. Moreover the proclamation for the servi c e of the accused was duly served, culminating in the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed per s on. At the outset, it is pertinen t to highlight that the procedure contempla t ed under Section 82(1) CrP C is mandator y and cannot be circumvente d . For a person to be declare d a proclaim e d person, the Court must recor d its satisfaction that the accuse d is abscondi n g or is deliberately concealing himself to evade the executio n of arrest wa r rants. This satisfaction must b e based on cogent material pla c ed before th e court and reflected in its ord e rs. However, the orders passed by the Ld. J M IC in the present case are c o nspicuously silent on this crit i cal AJAY KUMAR aspect. A t no point did the Ld. JMIC reco r d its satisfaction that the petitioner 2025.09.15 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-38628-2025 9

was abs c onding or deliberately evadi n g arrest. The absence of s u ch satisfacti o n strikes at the root of the pro c lamation proceedings and ren d ers the subs e quent order declaring the peti t ioner a proclaimed person leg a lly unsustain a ble.

8.1. Furthermore, the proceedin g s under Section 82 Cr.P.C., 1 9 73 must stri c tly comply with the prescribe d statutory requirements. In Sonu (supra) t h e Court laid down that a decl a ration under Section 82 cannot be issued m e chanically or as a matter of co u rse. As per condition (ii) of pa r a 9 of Sonu (supra) mandates that the Co u rt must specifically ascertain a nd record its satisfaction regarding the accu s ed’s intent to evade the proces s of law. The n on-adherence to this cardinal p rinciple in the instant case ren d ers the impu g ned proclamation defective and without jurisdiction. 8.2. Additionally, the issuance o f a proclamation in the form o f a public notice, which must be published i n a prescribed manner, giving the accused a stipulated time to appear before the Court. This proced u ral safeguar d was neither followed nor recor d ed in the present case. In vie w of the abov e , the non-compliance with ma n datory requirements under Section 82 Cr.P. C ., 1973 and the failure to adh e re to the guidelines laid dow n in Sonu (s u pra), renders the declaration o f the petitioner as a proclai m ed person l e gally infirm. Consequently, th e impugned order deserves to be quashed a nd set aside in the interests of j u stice 9. It is pertinent to mention th a t by now it is a settled principl e of law that the Court which issues the p roclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., 1 973 must record its satisfacti o n that the accused in respect of

AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.15 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-38628-2025 10

whom th e proclamation is being made, i s absconding or concealing him s elf to evade his arrest. The predomina n t requirement for invocation of provision s of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is cle a rly lacking i n the present case. Perusal of o r der dated 21.02.2023 as also order dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure P-6) passe d by the Judicial Magistrate sh o ws that no s a tisfaction has been recorded w hile issuing the proclamation t hat the accu s ed-petitioner has absconded o r is concealing himself so t hat warrants of arrest against him cannot b e executed. There was no mate r ial present b e fore the Judicial Magistrate to record such a satisfaction. Rat h er, the case put forth by the petitioner be f ore this Court, that he has ne v er resided a t the address given by the polic e in the case, clearly shows tha t he was neve r served with any warrants befo r e issuance of proclamation aga i nst him.

Strangely the impugned ord e r dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure P -6) as also o r der dated 05.07.2025 passed b y the Judicial Magistrate, declaring the petiti o ner as proclaimed person has relied upon statement of serving official t o hold that the proclamation iss u ed against the petitioner has b e en effected. The Judicial Magistrate wh i le passing the impugned order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person in the case has been tot a lly oblivious of service report of proclamatio n by the police. As was enunci a ted in para 9 (vi) of the judgment in the cas e of Sonu (supra) , the proclamation has to be published in the manner laid d o wn in section 82(2) of the Cr.P . C., 1973. Fo r publication the proclamation has to be first publicly read in s o me conspicu o us place of the town or villa g e in which the accused ordina r ily AJAY KUMAR resides; t h en the same has to be affixe d to some conspicuous part of the 2025.09.15 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-38628-2025 11

house or homestead in which the accu s ed ordinarily resides or to s o me conspicu o us place of such town or vil l age and thereafter a copy of the proclama t ion has to be affixed to some c o nspicuous part of the Court-house. 11. The provisions of Sectio n 82 of the Code of Crim i nal Procedur e having serious ramification s qua the right of the accu s ed concerni n g his presence in the criminal t rial proceedings ought not be a nd cannot b e invoked in casual and cava l ier manner. The requirement of recording of satisfaction, that the accus e d has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrant of his arrest ca n not be executed, as embodie d in Section 8 2 of the Code of Criminal P rocedure, is to be scrupulo u sly complied with based on relevant materia l available on record of the cas e in that rega r d. Non-adherence to said requi r ement while declaring the accu s ed as procla i med person vitiates the procla m ation proceedings initiated aga i nst the accus e d.

Hence, no useful purpose w ould be served by keeping the criminal p roceedings pending against t h e petitioner particularly when the petitione r has already joined the investigation and has cooperate and he n ce it would b e an appropriate case for exerc i se of powers under Section 48 2 of Cr.P.C. a n d to bring to an end the crimin a l proceedings initiated in the li g ht of the FI R ibid against the petitioner. 13. In view of the above find i ngs, in the entirety of facts a nd circumst a nces of the present case, the p resent petition is allowed and the order da t ed 31.10.2023 (Annexure P-6 ) as also order dated 05.07.2025, passed b y the learned Judicial Magis t rate, 1^st Class, Amritsar in case AJAY KUMAR CHI/135 2 /2019 titled as State of Punja b vs. Kulwinder Singh Etc. in F IR 2025.09.15 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-38628-2025 12

No.0049 d ated 07.05.2017 registered un d er Sections 341, 324, 323, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (offences u n der Sections 326 and 201 of I PC added la t er on) at Police Station Kath u Nangal, District Amritsar Ru r al, whereby t he petitioner was declared pro c laimed person as well as the other conseque n tial proceedings arising therefr o m are quashed. 14. Pending application(s), if a ny, shall also stand disposed of accordin g ly.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

Septemb e r 12, 2025 Ajay

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.15 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document