JUDGMENT Ajai Lamba, J. (Oral):- This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in challenge to Orders dated 20.1.2007 (Annexure P-3) and 24.3.2007 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, in criminal complaint No.78-T/16.8.2000/18.9.2000 titled ‘State vs. Om Parkash & Others’ 2. In Order dated 20.1.2007 (Annexure P-3), it has been noticed that on notice issued to accused Nos.2 and 3 (the petitioner being accused No.3), it was reported that no such person was found to be living at the address given. Further it has been noticed that since 16.8.2001, the presence of the accused could not be procured and therefore, satisfaction of the Court has been recorded that the petitioner is avoiding service. The petitioner was directed to be summoned through proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 3. Order dated 24.3.2007 (Annexure P-4) notices that proclamation for service of the petitioner was issued. From the statement of serving official, Head Constable Satnam Singh and reports, it was found that proclamation was effected on 20.2.2007. Thereafter, satisfaction of the Court has been recorded that the petitioner had absented and was intentionally not appearing. The petitioner accordingly has been declared proclaimed offender. 4. Learned counsel has pointed out that not only the wrong address of the petitioner had been given, even the Court has noticed that as per report, no person was found living at the given address. Contention therefore is that making attempt to serve a person at the wrong address cannot discredit that person. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no relevant material available with the Court to hold that petitioner had been avoiding service. 5. The other contention of the learned counsel is that warrants had not been issued before publishing the proclamation in terms of provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to dispute the fact that warrants had not been issued before proceeding to publish the proclamation. 7. Having regard to the above, I find that not only attempt to serve the petitioner was not made at the correct address of the petitioner, even warrants had not been issued against the petitioner. It was required to be recorded by the Court that the warrants cannot be executed and thereafter the Court could publish a written proclamation requiring the petitioner to appear at a specific place and specific time. It was required to be recorded by the Court that the warrants cannot be executed and thereafter the Court could publish a written proclamation requiring the petitioner to appear at a specific place and specific time. The warrants not having been issued, the proceedings are rendered illegal. 8. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. 9. Orders dated 20.1.2007 (Annexure P-3) and 24.3.2007 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, in criminal complaint No.78-T/ 16.8.2000/18.9.2000 titled ‘State vs. Om Parkash & Others’ are hereby quashed ----------------------