Punjab and Haryana HC: Non-Resident Indians Cannot Be Declared Proclaimed Persons Without Service Through Overseas Diplomatic Channels

The High Court has invalidated the 'proclaimed person' status of an NRI, ruling that a person residing abroad before the issuance of warrants cannot be deemed an absconder unless diplomatic service channels are exhausted. This decision reinforces that the mandatory procedures under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are conjunctive and strictly binding on the trial courts.

Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal presided over the petition challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, which had declared the petitioner a proclaimed person while she was residing in Canada. The Court scrutinized whether the lower court's failure to utilize diplomatic processes for service rendered the proclamation proceedings a nullity.

Invalidity of Proclamation Against NRIs Residing Abroad

The Court observed that the petitioner had left India for Canada on May 22, 2012, well before the summoning order dated April 11, 2013, was passed. Despite the police having knowledge that the petitioner was abroad, the warrants and subsequent proclamations were issued at her local village address in Ludhiana. The Court clarified that for persons residing abroad, standard local publication does not suffice when the individual is not intentionally 'evading' arrest but is simply not present in the country.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "A person cannot be said to be 'abscond' or 'evade' the execution of warrant when he had gone to a distant place before the issue of the warrant... there was no occasion for the Court to issue proclamation as the petitioner was neither concealing herself nor was absconding. Impugned order dated 03.06.2014 is not in consonance with law as the proclamation was not published at the place where petitioner was ordinarily residing."

Failure to Comply with Mandatory Procedures under Section 82

The Requirement of Conjunctive Publication

Under Section 82(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, the law requires three modes of publication: public reading in a conspicuous place, affixation at the last known residence, and affixation at the Court-house. Referring to Anita Sharma Vs. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that these sub-clauses are conjunctive. Any violation, such as failing to publicly read the proclamation as noted in the Constable's statement, vitiates the entire proceeding.

Mandatory Use of Diplomatic Channels

For NRIs, the Court emphasized the necessity of Section 105 of the Indian Penal Code (or relevant provisions of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Relying on Parminder Singh @ Tinku Vs. State of Punjab and Sarabjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, the bench noted that it was "obligatory for the trial Court to execute the process through the Embassy of the concerned country." Failure to do so renders the dependence on a 'deficit report' from a local serving constable legally flawed.

The Court has the following directions:

"The impugned order of learned SDJM, Ludhiana dated 03.06.2014 declaring the petitioner a 'proclaimed person' cannot be sustained in law and is hereby set aside and quashed. This order is subject to payment of costs of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited in Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh within 3 months from today. Petitioner is directed to surrender before learned SDJM, Ludhiana, within a period of 3 months from today and move an application for regular bail which learned trial Court shall decide, in accordance with law, on its own merits."

Key Takeaways

PROTECTION FOR NRIs: Legal proceedings cannot label an individual an 'absconder' if they were already residing abroad before the warrants were issued, unless intent to evade is explicitly proven.

MANDATORY DIPLOMATIC SERVICE: Courts are now strictly required to use the aegis of the Indian Embassy and diplomatic channels under international service rules before declaring an overseas resident a proclaimed offender.

CONJUNCTIVE STATUTORY COMPLIANCE: Failure to perform even one of the three publication modes (public reading, residence affixation, court affixation) renders the proclamation void ab initio.

COST-BASED RELIEF: The Court may impose exemplary costs for delayed approaches to the judiciary, even when the underlying order is legally unsustainable.

Ratio

The provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (or Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) are mandatory and conjunctive; any non-compliance with the specific modes of publication or the failure to serve an overseas resident through diplomatic channels as required by law renders the order declaring a person a 'proclaimed offender' a nullity. A person residing abroad prior to the issuance of a warrant cannot be deemed to have 'absconded' or 'concealed' themselves with the intent to disrupt the execution of that warrant.

Background:

The dispute arose from a 2011 complaint involving allegations under Section 323, 341, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, Mandeep Kaur, had moved to Canada in 2012, while the trial against her co-accused continued. In June 2014, she was declared a proclaimed person because she failed to appear after local village publication. Meanwhile, her co-accused were acquitted in October 2025. She moved the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the complaint and the proclamation order. While the Court refused to quash the complaint (as the acquittal of co-accused is currently under appeal), it quashed the proclamation due to procedural illegalities regarding her overseas status and the faulty publication process.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRM-M-4800-2026 (O&M)
NeutralCitation: 2026:PHHC:097489
Case Title: Mandeep Kaur Alias Mandeep Kaur Sarao v. State of Punjab and Another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sunny Kumar Singla, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Akash Yadav, AAG, Punjab

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 176