Delhi High Court Quashes Proclamation Order, LOC Against Australian Citizen, Says No Effort Made To Serve Accused Abroad

The Delhi High Court has quashed a proclamation order declaring an Australian citizen as a “proclaimed person” along with the Look-Out Circular (LOC) issued against him, holding that no proper effort was made to serve him while he was residing abroad.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “despite having knowledge of the petitioner‟s residence abroad, no effort was made by the investigating agency to serve summons or warrants upon him at his Australian address. There is nothing on record also to show that any steps were taken to effect service through the Ministry of External Affairs or through any other legally recognized mode for service upon a person residing outside India.”

The bench found that the proclamation proceedings initiated under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC were vitiated, as the investigating agency failed to take steps to serve the accused at his known address in Australia.

The petitioner had challenged the order passed by a trial court in 2019 declaring him a proclaimed person in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC.

He contended that he had been residing in Australia since March 2018 and that the authorities were fully aware of his overseas address, yet continued to effect service only at his Delhi residence.

Agreeing with the petitioner, the High Court observed, “there is no material to indicate that the learned CMM was apprised of the fact that the address of the petitioner, who was a permanent resident of Australia and was not residing at the address in Delhi where service was purportedly effected, was available with the police officials since the same had been mentioned in the writ petition filed before this Court itself.”

Reliance was placed on Sunil Kumar v. State (2001) where the High Court had held that where despite knowledge of the petitioner's presence abroad, no meaningful steps were taken to ensure proper service before initiating proclamation proceedings, the proclamation order was passed without application of mind.

The Court also took note of the fact that the petitioner had remained in communication with the investigating agency.

“In such circumstances, the very basis for treating the petitioner as a proclaimed person becomes doubtful. A person who is in continuous communication with the investigating agency and is responding to its directions cannot, in the ordinary course, be said to be absconding or concealing himself from the process of law. Moreover, the failure of the investigating agency to inform the petitioner about the proclamation proceedings, despite being in regular contact with him, assumes significance and lends credence to the petitioner‟s contention that he was kept unaware of the same,” the Court said.

As such, the Court set aside the proclamation order and the Look-Out Circular issued against the petitioner.

Appearance: Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aekta Vats and Ms. Janvi, Advocates for Petitioner; Mrs. Anubha Bhardwaj, SPP CBI along with Ms Ananya Shamshery and Mr. Vijay Misra, Advs. along with Inspector Avinash, IO, CBI.

Case title: Manish Popli v. CBI

Case no.: CRL.M.C. 2454/202

Click here to read order