CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 31195 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 09, 2011 Anil Kumar and another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners in this case have prayed for quashing of orders, Annexures P-2 and P-3, vide which they have been declared proclaimed offenders under Section 82 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the Magistrate could not have declared them as proclaimed offenders as they are not charged under the offences specified in sub-section (4) of Section 82 Cr.P.C. It is to be noticed that initially in this case the FIR was lodged under Sections 148, 134, 323, 506, 395, 397, 364 and 307 IPC. During investigation, the offences under Sections 395, 397, 364 CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 31195 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 2 }: and 307 are deleted. The petitioners, thus, were accused of offences, for which Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. admittedly was applicable. It is not that culpability of the petitioners is to be established for these offences. A perusal of orders, Annexures P-2 and P-3, would show that when these orders were passed on 26.11.2007 or on 25.2.2008, the offences under Sections 395, 397, 364 IPC etc. had not been deleted and were shown to be existing for the purpose of prosecution. Thus, the petitioners cannot make grouse that the order under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C.could not have been passed in this case. When the impugned orders were passed in the year 2007 and 2008, the petitioners were alleged to be involved in offences for which concededly, a proclamation under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C.could be issued. The petitioners did not challenge these orders for over 3-4 years and have now challenged these orders only by taking advantage of some view taken by this Court. Reference here can be made to the observations made in CRM-M No.30146 of 2011 (Rajiv Vs. State of Haryana), decided on 12.10.2011, where the submission that an accused can be declared proclaimed offender only for offences mentioned in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. has not been accepted and approved. No case for interference, therefore, is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed. November 09, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE