Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of FIR No. 126 dated 27.5.1996, under Sections 406/498-A/427/342/120-B/34 IPC, Police Station Sadar Jalandhar. 2. The FIR was lodged by Harjinder Kaur Sidhu wife of the petitioner, against the petitioner, his father Sarup Singh, his brother Surjit Singh, his mother Mohinder Kaur and his sister Narinder Kaur. Except the petitioner, all others were acquitted vide judgment dated 5.6.1999, as the complainant did not appear as a witness and all other witnesses did not support the version of the complainant. According to the petitioner, the situation after lodging the FIR changed and there was divorce between the parties and the complainant also remarried. It is further stated that the petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender though he was never served as he was out of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of judgment in Jagdeep Singh @ Rana v. State of Haryana, 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 203, the FIR against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 4. After going through the said judgment, I do not find any relevance of the said judgment to the present case, wherein the issue involved was whether a statement before the Police was inadmissible and whether a person could be proceeded against only on the basis of statement made to the Police and there was no other evidence. 5. Normally, a person who is declared Proclaimed Offender, has to be required to first move the Court which declared him Proclaimed Offender and even an objection against validity of proclamation is required to be raised in the first instance before the Court which issued the proclamation and power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in favour of a person, who is absconding or avoiding service. However, having regard to peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case including the fact that the complainant did not appear as a witness and other witnesses also did not support the complainants version and the fact that the parties had been divorced and have been remarried, I am of the view that this case falls in an exceptional category where instead of requiring the petitioner to move the trial Court, his grievance should be considered in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In my opinion, it will be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in FIR No. 126 dated 27.5.1996. Order accordingly. Order accordingly.