In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that if an individual has already moved to Canada, they cannot be declared a ‘proclaimed offender’ at their former address in India.
The Court set aside an order declaring a young man a proclaimed offender in a sexual harassment case. A bench led by Justice Rohit Kapoor clarified that strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is mandatory before declaring any person a proclaimed offender.
The matter stemmed from a petition challenging an order passed on January 12, 2018, by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar, which had declared the petitioner a proclaimed offender. An FIR had been registered against him on May 8, 2015, at the Nakodar police station in Jalandhar under Sections 66-E and 67-A of the Information Technology Act and Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner informed the court that he was a minor at the time the FIR was registered and had already been granted anticipatory bail.
The petitioner’s father resided in Canada and had sponsored him to settle there; consequently, he left India for Canada on August 9, 2017. The court was informed that the petitioner believed the criminal case against him had concluded. The family only learned that he had been declared a proclaimed offender when his mother visited India.
The petitioner argued that he was not present at the relevant address when the proclamation was issued to summon him; therefore, the procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the CrPC was not followed. His passport served as evidence to substantiate this claim. The petitioner also argued that the order declaring him a fugitive was flawed, as the court had not specified whether he was intentionally absconding or had gone into hiding to evade arrest.
During the hearing, the High Court was informed that a settlement had been reached between the parties on December 6, 2025, and a separate petition had been filed to quash the FIR. Justice Rohit Kapoor noted that the petitioner was not present at the given address on the date the proclamation was issued. Allowing the petition, the court set aside the order declaring the petitioner a fugitive.
