Proclamation | Person Not 'Absconding' When He Went To Distant Place Before Warrant Was Issued: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that a person cannot said to have absconded or evaded arrest if he has gone to distant place before the warrant of arrest.

Section 82 of CrPC states, "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 specific place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation."

A person was declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 CrPC for evading arrest. However, the Court found that he had been living abroad even before the warrant was issued at an address in India.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil while setting aside the proclamation order said, "A person cannot be said to be “abscond” or “evade” the execution of warrant when he had gone to a distant place before the issue of the warrant."

Reliance was placed on M.S.R. Gundappa v. State of Karnataka (1977 Cr LJ NOC 187), wherein it was held that a person who had gone abroad even before the issue of the warrant of arrest cannot be said to be absconding or concealing himself with the intention to disrupt the execution of that warrant.

The Court was hearing the plea of one Sucha Singh, under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proclamation order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, SBS Nagar in 2015, in a case pertaining to sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC.

It was argued that a petition for divorce and the summons were served upon the complainant in 2014. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint in 2014 on the basis of which the present FIR against the petitioner, his wife, his son and daughter is lodged.

Singh stated that he came to know from his son that he has been shown residing at the address in India whereas, he is a British citizen and is residing abroad since 1988.

Thus, it was stated that because of the wrong address mentioned in the complaint, the complainant had managed to initiate deliberately and with malafide adverse proclaimed person proceedings against the petitioner, which was in violation of the provision of Section 82 CrPC.

It was further contended that the absence of the petitioner was neither intentional nor deliberate as prior to the registration of the FIR as well as the complaint, he had not resided in India since having settled in the UK in 1988.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the petitioner was a resident of the UK since 1988 i.e. well before the relevant FIR was filed.

According to Section 82 of the CrPC, a proclamation may be issued against an individual by the Court if it is reasonably believed that the person for whom a warrant has been issued has absconded or is hiding, making it impossible for the warrant to be carried out, the Court added.

Perusing the case file and documents on record, Justice Moudgil said, "it can be inferred that the petitioner is a resident of UK and has been a citizen of UK since the year 1988 i.e. 28 years. Further, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has been shown to be a resident of Village Dadial, District Hoshiarpur but for all intents and purposes, the residence of the petitioner was in UK, therefore, there was no occasion for him to evade the process of law intentionally, as he was never served in accordance with law."

Consequently, the Court opined that the proclamation order is bad in law and not sustainable.

Aadil Boparai,  Rishma Verma, Advocates for the petitioner.

Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.

Parvinder Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

Title: SUCHA SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

 Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH)107

Click here to read/download the order