AVTAR SINGH vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — CRM-M/9803/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 18-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010285062026

Filing Number

CRM-M/10874/2026

Filing Date

17-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/9803/2026

Registration Date

17-Feb-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Coram

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Bench Type

Single

Category

38.29 - QUASHING PET U/S 482 CRPC GEN IN U/S 138 NI ACT ( 649 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 12-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AVTAR SINGH

    Adv. DEEPAK KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Sumeet GoelView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed the order declaring Avtar Singh a proclaimed offender, finding the lower court violated mandatory Section 82 CrPC procedures by failing to record satisfaction that he had absconded, not issuing a fresh proclamation after adjournment, and not waiting 30 days from proclamation publication before declaring him a proclaimed person. The court emphasized that Section 82 procedures are mandatory and any non-compliance vitiates the entire proceedings, particularly when the accused was already in judicial custody at the time of proclamation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/9803/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed the order declaring Avtar Singh a proclaimed offender, finding the lower court violated mandatory Section 82 CrPC procedures by failing to record satisfaction that he had absconded, not issuing a fresh proclamation after adjournment, and not waiting 30 days from proclamation publication before declaring him a proclaimed person. The court emphasized that Section 82 procedures are mandatory and any non-compliance vitiates the entire proceedings, particularly when the accused was already in judicial custody at the time of proclamation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case