JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 12.09.2022 and 09.10.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XIII, Ranchi in Argora P.S. Case No. 94 of 2021 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XIII, Ranchi, has issued the non-bailable warrant of arrest and the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. respectively. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is an accused of Argora P.S. Case No. 94 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On 12.09.2022, the I.O. of the case made a prayer to the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XIII, Ranchi to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner who is the accused person of that case. It was contended by the I.O. that the accused person is intentionally concealing himself to evade his arrest and has not responded to the notices issued to him under Section 41A Cr.P.C. by not even giving any answer to the said notice. Based on the materials placed before it, it appeared to the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XIII, Ranchi that there are reasons to believe that the petitioner is concealing himself even though he has full knowledge of the case and evading his presence before the court, hence the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XIII, Ranchi has issued the non-bailable warrant of arrest. On 09.10.2023, the I.O. of the case filed an application for issuance of the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. It was submitted on behalf of the prosecution that the petitioner was evading his arrest in connection with the said Argora P.S. Case No. 94 of 2021. The learned Magistrate considered the execution report of the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner on 12.09.2022 and from the materials placed before it, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XIII, Ranchi was satisfied that the I.O. made full efforts to make arrest of the petitioner who is the accused person of the said case, hence the learned Magistrate was of the considered opinion that the materials placed before it are sufficient to believe that the petitioner against whom warrant of arrest was issued is absconding and is intentionally concealing himself. Therefore, it is not possible for the authority to execute the warrant of arrest and went on to issue the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued without complying the provisions of Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the same may be quashed. 5. So far as the order dated 09.10.2023 by which the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. can only be issued against the accused persons of such cases in which the accused person is alleged to have committed the offence as mentioned in Section 82(4) of the Cr.P.C. Since the petitioner is accused of having committed the offence punishable under Section 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code which offences do not find place in Section 82(4) of the Cr.P.C., so under no circumstances, the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. could have been issued by the learned Magistrate against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. having been issued without jurisdiction by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XIII, Ranchi be quashed. 6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Sanjay Bhandari vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 223 of 2018 dated 31.07.2018 in which in para-31, the learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was of the view that a person who is accused of offences other than the ones enumerated in Section 82(4) of the Cr.P.C. and qua whom a proclamation has been published under Section 82(1) would be a “proclaimed person” and not a deemed “proclaimed offender.” 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the Judgment of learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Manoj Tandon vs. State in Criminal M.C. 1961 of 2020 and allied cases dated 25.11.2020 in which the learned Single Judge relied upon the Judgment of Sanjay Bhandari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra). 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the Judgment of Rishabh Sethi vs. State of Rajasthan and Others in S.B. Criminal Misc. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra). 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the Judgment of Rishabh Sethi vs. State of Rajasthan and Others in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 5767 of 2017 dated 08.03.2018 wherein the Rajasthan High Court has held that unless a person is charged with the offences as mentioned in Sub-section 4 of Section 82 Cr.P.C. and he fails to appear at specified place and time required by the proclamation issued against him, the Court may not pronounce him as a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Balbir Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab in CRM M-28979 of 2023 dated 07.07.2023 in Para-10 of which it has been observed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana that as the accused of that case was accused of committing the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code which was not mentioned in Section 82(4) of the Cr.P.C. the trial court would have at the worst declared the petitioner as the proclaimed person and not a proclaimed offender. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Arun Kumar Parihar vs. State (Govt. NCTD) in Crl. M.C. No. 863 of 2021 dated 26.03.2021, wherein the Delhi High Court in the facts of that case as it was apparent from the record of that case that the petitioner before the Delhi High Court joined the investigation and was not absconding, the Delhi High Court quashed and set aside the non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner of that case. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 11. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer to quash the order dated 12.09.2022 and 09.10.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XIII, Ranchi in Argora P.S. Case No. 94 of 2021 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XIII, Ranchi, has issued the non-bailable warrant of arrest and the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. respectively. So far as the order dated 12.09.2022, it is submitted by the learned Addl. So far as the order dated 12.09.2022, it is submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. that in the facts as is applicable to this case, two ingredients were required for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest: (i) that the petitioner was accused of having committed a non-bailable offence. (ii) he was evading arrest. Undisputedly, the petitioner is accused of having committed the offences punishable under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code which are no doubt non-bailable offences and the learned Magistrate on the basis of the materials available in the record and which have been lucidly discussed in the order dated 12.09.2022 itself; has recorded its satisfaction that the petitioner was evading his arrest by concealing himself. Under such circumstances, it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XIII, Ranchi in issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the said order dated 12.09.2022 does not warrant any interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 12. So far as the order dated 09.10.2023 is concerned, the learned Addl. P.P. submits that the submission made by the petitioner is fallacious in the sense that Section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C. has in no uncertain manner empowers any court that has reasons to believe that any person against whom warrant has been issued, has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrant cannot be executed, such court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place at specified time. Thus for exercising the power under Section 82 Cr.P.C. involvement of any particular kind of offence is not required. Thus for exercising the power under Section 82 Cr.P.C. involvement of any particular kind of offence is not required. What is required is that the court to believe that a person against whom a warrant has been issued by it, has absconded or concealing him but if despite such proclamation made under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and the accused person of the case is not involved in the offences punishable under Section 82(4) of the Cr.P.C. then the court may declare such person to be a proclaimed person and if that person is accused of the offences punishable under Section 82(4) of the Cr.P.C. then such person upon his not appearing before the court despite the proclamation notice under Section 82 Cr.P.C. can declare such person to be a proclaimed offender, which invites a punishment up to seven years under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code but at this nascent stage, as the Magistrate concerned has not stated to have passed any order declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender; hence, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned trial court. Therefore, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 13. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to refer Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under: “82. Proclamation for person absconding: (1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. (2) The proclamation shall be published as follows: (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides. (b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village. (c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court House. (b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village. (c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court House. (ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides. (3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause (i) of sub-section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day. (4) Where a proclamation published under sub-section (1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect. (5) The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration made by the Court under sub-section (4) as they apply to the proclamation published under sub-section (1).” “174A. Non-appearance in response to a proclamation under section 82 of Act 2 of 1974: Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub-section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and where a declaration has been made under sub-section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. A plain reading of Section 82(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure abundantly makes it crystal clear that the only pre-condition for exercising the power under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a court for issuing the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the court concerned has the reason to believe that the person against whom warrant has been issued by it has absconded or concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed; irrespective of the fact, as to for which offence, the accused person of the case is involved but there is consequence also if the accused person of the case do not appears despite the proclamation made under Section 82 Cr.P.C. in a court concerned; by way of punishment as envisaged under section 174 A of the Indian Penal Code. Here lies the difference between the accused person who do not appears despite the proclamation made under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable as mentioned in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. and the accused person who is accused of committing offences other than the offences mentioned in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. In case, the accused person of the case against whom proclamation under Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C. is issued, is accused of having committed the offences punishable under Section 82(4) of the Cr.P.C. then consequent upon his non-appearance before the court concerned, such person can be declared as a proclaimed offender and under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code such person can be sentenced up to seven years and shall also be liable to fine but if a person who is accused of having committed offences other than those mentioned in Section 82(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure then such person, even if he does not appear before the court concerned despite the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. cannot be declared as a proclaimed offender. He can at best be declared as a proclaimed person and under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code, such person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extent to three years or with fine or with both. He can at best be declared as a proclaimed person and under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code, such person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extent to three years or with fine or with both. So this being the scheme of Section 82 Cr.P.C. this Court has no hesitation in holding that the contention of the petitioner that under no circumstances, the power under Section 82 Cr.P.C. can be issued by any court unless and until the accused is accused for having committed the offences as mentioned in Section 82(4) of the Cr.P.C. is fallacious and has no legs to stand. 15. Now coming to the facts of the case, so far as the order dated 12.09.2022 is concerned, the only two ingredients as is applicable to the facts of the case for issue of non-bailable warrant of arrest is that the accused person concerned is accused of having committed a non-bailable offence and he is evading his arrest. After going through the order dated 12.09.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-XIII, Ranchi, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Magistrate has in no uncertain manner recorded its satisfaction on the basis of materials brought before it that the petitioner is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading his arrest. Hence, this Court do not finds any illegality in the order dated 12.09.2022. 16. So far as the order dated 09.10.2023 is concerned, the learned Magistrate on the basis of the materials placed before it, has in no uncertain manner has recorded its satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding and he is intentionally concealing himself, therefore it is not possible for the authorities to execute the warrant of arrest and by fixing the time and place for appearance of the accused has passed order for issuance of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court also do not find any illegality in the order dated 09.10.2023 to interfere with the same in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 17. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.