Delhi High Court Directs Trial Courts To Verify Accused's Address Before Declaring Them Absconders

The Delhi High Court has directed all trial courts in the national capital to verify whether an accused is deliberately evading summons or arrest before declaring them an absconder or a proclaimed offender, cautioning that the pendency of criminal cases cannot justify such orders without cogent grounds.

Justice Girish Kathpalia issued a set of directions requiring trial courts to independently examine reports on the service of summons and execution of warrants and to record reasons in writing before reaching findings against an accused.

The directions came while quashing an FIR registered under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a man who was declared an absconder in a cheque bouncing case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The Court directed that complainants must, at the inception of a complaint case, furnish an affidavit disclosing the correct address of the house where the accused ordinarily resides, along with other addresses where summons can be served electronically.

“The findings related to service of summons and execution of warrants shall be supported by way of reasons to be recorded in writing based on objective analysis of the material on record, carried out personally by the judge presiding over the concerned court,” it added.

It also ordered that where summons or warrants return with a report that the accused does not reside or work at the given address, the trial court must call upon the complainant to produce cogent evidence establishing that the accused ordinarily resides there.

“Before recording that the accused is deliberately avoiding service or execution of process, the learned judge presiding over the concerned trial court shall personally examine the report of the Process Server or the concerned police official on the returned summons/warrants,” the Court said.

It emphasised that the heavy pendency of criminal cases cannot justify declaring an accused an absconder without examining whether the legal requirements have been met.

It observed that the statutory safeguards are intended not only to prevent innocent persons from suffering the harsh consequences of the law, but also to guard against complainants furnishing incorrect addresses to procure orders declaring accused persons absconders and consequent registration of criminal cases.

The Court noted that the proceedings against the accused in the case were initiated on addresses in Ludhiana where he was not residing or working for several years.

The trial court had proceeded to issue bailable and non-bailable warrants and subsequently initiated proclamation proceedings.

Holding that the accused was wrongly declared an absconder, the Court quashed the FIR against him.

The Court further directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to all Principal District and Sessions Judges in Delhi and the Delhi Judicial Academy to ensure strict compliance with the directions.