V.M.JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner, seeking quashment of the proclamation issued on 29.4.2000 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Sonepat.
(2.) IN the petition it was alleged that FIR No. 17 dated 25.9.1998 under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered at P.S. State Vigilance Bureau (Haryana), Rohtak (Unit Sonepat) against the petitioner. It was alleged that the said FIR was under challenge by way of CWP No. 2461 of 2000 filed by the petitioner in this Court and the next date of hearing was on 2.6.2000. It was alleged that in the said writ petition, State of Haryana had filed its written statement. It was further alleged that in the said case pending before the Special Judge, Sonepat, the respondents by giving false statement or otherwise managed to get proclamation dated 29.4.2000, copy Annexure P-2, issued against the petitioner. It was alleged that the said proclamation dated 29.4.2000 was illegal, as the same did not conform to the mandatory provisions of Section 82 of Criminal Procedure Code. It was alleged that before the proclamation was ordered to be issued against the petitioner under Section 82 of Criminal Procedure Code, the police have never come to the house of the petitioner with warrants of arrest. It was further alleged that the said proclamation had not been properly published. It was accordingly prayed that the proclamation dated 29.4.2000, copy Annexure P-2 be quashed. In the written statement filed by Banwari Lal, DSP, State Vigilance Bureau (Haryana), on behalf of respondents, it was alleged that in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, this Court had not stayed the further proceedings before the trial Court. It was denied that the respondents by giving false statement or otherwise had managed to get proclamation dated 29.4.2000 issued against the petitioner. On the other hand, it was alleged that the Investigating Officer had obtained the proclamation order from the Special Judge, on the basis of the material available on the record. It was alleged that the said proclamation issued by the Special Judge was perfectly legal and valid and it conformed to the provisions of Section 82 of Criminal Procedure Code. It was alleged that arrest warrants were issued by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Sonepat on 31.3.2000 and thereafter, S.I. Sunehara Singh visited the house of the petitioner on 6.4.2000, 10.4.2000 and 18.4.2000 with the arrest warrants and the petitioner was not found present, whereas his wife and daughter were present and when they were asked about his whereabouts they told SI Sunehra Singh that they did not know as to where petitioner had gone. It was alleged that anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge) vide order dated 20.9.1999. It was alleged that after the proclamation was issued vide order dated 29.4.2000, Constable Satish Kumar served the proclamation order upon the daughter of the petitioner and had also affixed the same at the front gate of the house of the petitioner on 11.5.2000 but inspite of that the petitioner had not appeared before the Special Judge. It was alleged that proclamation order dated 29.4.2000 was issued by the Special Judge after complying with the requirements of Section 82 of Criminal Procedure Code.
(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.;