1. Kashmir Ram has sought the quashing of private complaint dated 9.8.1999 and summoning orders dated 2.11.2000 and 27.3.2003 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahr summoning the petitioner along with four others and orders declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender under Section 82of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant had made a statement in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahr that he has compounded the offence with all the accused. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahr passed the following order:

"Present :- Complainant with counsel Sh. H.K. Bhambi, Advocate.

All accused on bail with counsel Sh. L.S. Kahlon, Advocate except accused Kashmir Singh who is P.O.

No CW is present. Complainant Nasib Chand has given the statement that he has effected compromise with the accused and does not wish to proceed with the present complaint against them. Case at this stage is pending for pre-charge evidence, Charge is yet to be framing. Accused have been summoned for offence under Section 323of IPC read with Section 149of IPC, which offence is compoundable in nature and is not cognizable. The present complaint is therefore dismissed as withdrawn and accused No. 1 to 3, 4, 5 and 7 are discharged. Accused No. 6 is however proclaimed offender. File be consigned to record room, to be taken up as and when accused No.6 is arrested or surrenders before the Court.

Pronounced.

17.8.2007

Sd/-(Priya Sood)

Sub Divn. Judl. Magistrate

Nawanshahr"

3. The complainant-respondent No.2 does not seem to have any grievance against any of the accused persons, mentioned in his private- complaint. The petitioner being accused No.6 in the complaint appears to be an accused of the Court for having not appeared before the Court pursuant to the summons issued by the Court against him and issuance of proclamation under Section 82Cr.P.C. It is an admitted fact that before the issuance of the summoning order the petitioner had left India. He has been residing in Greece since 28.9.2000. In the judgment of Sunil Kumar v. State, 2002(1) RCR (Crl) 119, (Delhi High Court) has held that when the accused is residing in foreign country no attempt is made to serve summons through ministry of External Affairs. The order of proclamation is liable to be set aside. In the said judgment, it was held that in addition to the ordinary mode of service; notice can also be ordered to be published in a newspaper where the person is ordinarily residing. In the said case the issue of proclamation where the Court had not recorded satisfaction that the warrants against the petitioner could not be served or that the accused was concealing himself was set aside.

4. In the present case also the notice issued to petitioner under Section 82of the Criminal Procedure Code has neither been served upon him nor the proclaimation has been issued in accordance with the procedure of law. Besides this the matter had arisen out of private complaint filed by respondent No. 2, who had made a statement before Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahr on 17.3.2008 that he did not want to continue the proceedings against any of the accused. The offence alleged against the petitioner is compoundable. The trial Court in the said circumstances should have permitted compounding of all the offences especially when the statement has already been recorded.

In view of the above circumstances, the criminal complaint Annexure P-1, the summoning order Annexure P-2, the order of trial Court declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender and Order dated 17.8.2007 declining permission to compromise the matter are hereby set aside.

The petition is allowed.