Last Updated on January 2, 2026 by Satish Mishra

Case Covers PO Order Quashing Punjab Haryana HighCourt Chandigarh wherein Judicial Magistrate Ist Class declared petitioner proclaimed person.

Who is Proclaimed Person?

A “proclaimed person” (or offender) in legal terms is someone a court declares to be evading justice, typically by failing to appear for a serious criminal case, leading to public notices, potential arrest by any citizen, passport restrictions, and severe penalties if they remain absconding, as detailed under India’s Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). It’s a legal status for accused individuals who hide to avoid warrants, allowing for enhanced punitive measures and in-absentia trials.

Also Read-ANTICIPATORY BAIL FOR PROCLAIMED OFFENDER in High Court

Proclaimed Person and Proclaimed offender Difference?

A Proclaimed Person (or absconder) is generally any person failing to appear after a court summons/warrant under CrPC Section 82(1) for various offenses, facing lesser punishment (e.g., up to 3 yrs). A Proclaimed Offender is a more serious declaration under Section 82(4) for specific, grievous crimes (like murder, robbery) listed in the Indian Penal Code, leading to harsher penalties (e.g., up to 7 yrs) and greater legal consequences (like passport seizure, job disqualification). The key difference lies in the severity of the underlying offense and consequent punishment.

Also Read- Arrest of a Proclaimed Offender

Key Distinction

All proclaimed offenders are proclaimed persons, but not all proclaimed persons become proclaimed offenders. The “offender” label is reserved for those absconding from very serious crimes, carrying significantly higher penalties and social stigma.

The order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender is in gross violation of law and principles of natural justice when there is no deliberate evasion or appearance on the part of the petitioner. Thus, these orders are illegal and liable to be set aside.

Also Read- Proclaimed Offender Anticipatory Bail High Court Chandigarh

Declaring PO Process in India

The law is well settled that no person can be declared a proclaimed offender/person unless the procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is meticulously adhered to. It is trite law that the provisions of Section 82 are mandatory in nature, and any non-compliance compliance thereof vitiates the entire proceedings

Furthermore, Section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C. clearly provides that before issuing a proclamation requiring a person to appear, the Court must have reason to believe that such person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant cannot be executed. Further, the proclamation must specify a date not less than 30 days from the date of publication for the accused to appear before the Court. Also it is important to peruse the record that reflects that the summons and warrants were returned unserved and there is no finding that the petitioner was evading service.

Also Read- Anticipatory Bail Proclaimed Offender High Court Chandigarh

The law is well settled that when a matter is adjourned after issuance of proclamation, the Court is required to issue a fresh proclamation intimating the adjourned date. Failure to do so vitiates the subsequent order declaring the accused as a proclaimed offender. The impugned order reflects non-compliance compliance with the statutory requirement of waiting for a minimum of 30 days after publication of proclamation before declaring an accused a proclaimed offender. Clear notice period of not less than 30 days from the date of its publication must be provided in the proclamation itself.

The Court at times commits illegality by issuing the said proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, without complying the mandatory requirements of law and proceeds in mechanical manner.

Also Read- Get PROCLAIMED OFFENDER Arrested in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali

Chandigarh HighCourt Precedent on PO Quashing

Coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with invocation of the provision of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against against an accused in the case of ”Sonu Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319 has held as under:

“9. The essential requirements of section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder and declaring him as proclaimed person/offender may be summarized as under:-

Prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court is sine qua non for issuance and publication of the proclamation and the Court has to first issue warrant of arrest against the person concerned. State of Delhi: 2008 Crl. J. 2561).
(There must be a report before the Court that the person against whom warrant was issued had absconded or had been concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest could not be executed against h Court is not bound to take evidence in this regard before issuing a Proclamation under section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. (See Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561)
The Court cannot issue the Proclamation as a matter because the Police is asking for it. The Court must be prima facie satisfied that the person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence. (See BishundayalMahton and others v. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366 and Devender Singh Negi v. State of U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783).
The requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the proclamation requiring such person to appear on such date at the specified place. Such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of issuance and publication of the proclamation. (See Gurappa Gugal and others v. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali v. State of IMINAL) 339). Also Read- PO Quashing HighCourt Chandigarh Order
Where the period between issuance and publication of the proclamation and the specified date of hearing is less than thirty days, the accused cannot be declared a proclaimed person/offender and the proclamation has to be issued and published again. (See Dilbagh Singh v. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) RCR (CRIMINAL) 166 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (CRIMINAL) 550)
The Proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in Cr.P.C., 1973. For publication the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some house. The three sub-clauses (a)- (c) in .C., 1973 are conjunctive and not disjunctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are proved. (See Pawan Kumar Gupta v. The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368). Where the Court so orders a copy of the proclamation has to be additionally published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which the accused ordinarily resides. Advisably, proclamation has to be issued with four copies so that one each of the three copies of the proclamation may be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides, to some conspicuous place of such town or village and to some conspicuous part of the Courthouse and report regarding publication may be made on the fourth copy of the proclamation. Additional copy will be required where the proclamation is also required to be published in the newspaper.
Statement of the serving officer has to be recorded by the Court as to the date and mode of publication of the proclamation. (See Birad Dan v. State: 1958 CriLJ 965).
The Court issuing the proclamation has to make a statement in writing in its order that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day in a manner specified in section Such statement in writing by the Court is declared to be conclusive evidence that the requirements of Section 82 have been complied with and that the proclamation was published on such day. (See Birad Dan v. State: 1958 CriLJ 965).
The conditions specified in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for the publication of a Proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any compliance therewith cannot be cured as an ‘irregularity’ and renders ings subsequent thereto a nullity. (See Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu v. State of U.P. and another: 1994 CriLJ 1783 and Pal Singh v. The State: 1955 CriLJ 318).”

Also Read- If Proclaimed Offender or Po by Court, Then Read This.

As a settled principle of issuing a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the Court must record its satisfaction that the accused, against whom the proclamation is sought to be issued, is absconding or concealing him with intent to evade arrest. This foundational requirement at times, is absent in many cases. The issuance of non-bailable warrants and proclamation without establishing proper service of earlier process(s) shows non-compliance with the due process of law, resulting in serious prejudice to the petitioner.

Provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure having serious ramifications qua the right of the accused concerning his presence in the criminal trial proceedings ought not be and cannot be invoked in casual and cavalier manner. The require requirement of recording of satisfaction, that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrant of his arrest cannot be executed, as embodied in Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to be scrupulously complied with based on relevant material available on record of the case in that regard. Non adherence to said requirement while declaring the accused as proclaimed person vitiates the proclamation proceedings initiated against the accused.

Also Read-Grounds for Quashing of Fir

Thus, High Court under its inherent powers can quash illegal orders declaring petitioners as Proclaimed Person or Proclaimed Offender.

Responses from AI.

Quashing a Proclaimed Offender (PO) status in the High Court usually involves filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC (or Section 528 BNSS), asking the court to use its inherent powers to stop unjust criminal proceedings, often by getting the original FIR or charges quashed, but generally, a PO must first surrender or submit to the court’s jurisdiction, as absconders often can’t use these petitions easily unless there are exceptional circumstances like extreme malafide by the complainant or a settled dispute. The High Court can quash cases if they’re baseless, an abuse of process, or settled, but a PO must overcome the hurdle of being a fugitive from justice. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Key Concepts

PO (Proclaimed Offender): An individual declared by a court as absconding after failing to appear in a criminal case (often under Section 82 CrPC/BNSS).
Quashing: The High Court’s power to cancel an FIR, chargesheet, or entire criminal case.
Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS: Grants High Courts inherent powers to prevent abuse of process or secure justice, even after chargesheets are filed. [1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8]

Grounds for Quashing

No Offense Disclosed: Allegations don’t constitute a crime.
Abuse of Process: Malicious prosecution or harassment.
Settlement: Amicable resolution, especially in compoundable offenses.
Lack of Evidence: No material to support charges.
Civil Dispute: Matter is primarily civil in nature. [1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10]

Challenges for a Proclaimed Offender

General Rule: Courts are reluctant to entertain quashing petitions from POs who are still absconding.
Jurisdiction: A PO must generally submit to the court’s jurisdiction first.
Exception: A PO might succeed if they can prove extreme mala fide intentions or show the proceedings are entirely baseless, often through specific rulings like those from the Punjab & Haryana High Court. [1, 6, 7]

How it Works (General Process)

File Petition: A petition (e.g., CRM-M) is filed in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.
Arguments: Argue that the FIR/proceedings are unjust, malafide, or legally unsustainable.
Court’s Power: High Court uses inherent powers to prevent injustice or abuse of law.
Outcome: If successful, the FIR/case is quashed, stopping further proceedings. [2, 4, 5, 11]

In essence, while a PO can seek quashing, they face significant hurdles unless they overcome their absconding status or the case itself is fundamentally flawed. [1, 3, 6, 7, 12]

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1] https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/punjab-and-haryana-high-court/punjab-haryana-high-court-proclaimed-offender-petitions-through-power-of-attorney-241122

[2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/quashing-petitions-under-section-482-criminal-procedure-karan-singh-he75c

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlcFRhkuGlo

[4] https://ssrana.in/litigation/criminal-litigation-india/quashing-of-fir/

[5] https://lsolegal.com/blogs/en/genral/case-quashing-in-india-quash-fir-under-section-482-crpc-528-bnss

[6] https://supremetoday.ai/issue/Proclaimed-Offender-can-Contest-against-Quashing-Po

[7] https://www.casemine.com/search/in/Quashing%2Bof%2BPO%2Border

[8] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/iy5alMRNOF8

[9] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/can-i-file-quashing-petition-complainant-ready-settle-rohilla-zf2hf

[10] https://finlawassociates.com/blog/quashing-of-fir-in-india-legal-grounds-and-process-explained

[11] https://www.highcourtchd.gov.in/landmark_judgments/HC/English/CRM-M_59270_2023.pdf