Section 174A IPC Is An Independent & Substantive Offence That Can Continue Even If Proclamation U/s 82 CrPC Is Extinguished: SC
The Supreme Court has held that Section 174A of the IPC is an independent, substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is extinguished.
The Court explained that while the proceedings under Section 174A of the IPC cannot be initiated independent of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., (post the issuance of proclamation) they can continue if the said proclamation is no longer in effect.
The Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol explained, “Granted that the offence prescribed in Section 174A IPC is indeed stand-alone, given that it arises out of an original offence in connection with which proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is initiated and in the said offence the accused stands, subsequently, acquitted, it would be permissible in law for the Court seized of the trial under such offence, to take note of such a development and treat the same as a ground to draw the proceedings to a close, should such a prayer be made and the circumstances of the case so warrant.”
Advocate Sugandh Rathor represented the Appellant, while AAG Raj Singh Rana appeared for the Respondents.
The Appellant was declared a proclaimed offender by the Judicial Magistrate for failing to appear in the Court despite summons and a written proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Appellant’s Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings, stating that a proclaimed offender could not file such Petitions without first addressing the proclamation status before the Trial Court.
The Supreme Court had to determine the following:
- Whether the status of a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. can subsist after acquittal in the related trial.
- Whether proceedings under Section 174A of the IPC can continue independently after the proclamation status is nullified.
The Bench stated, “Now, what happens if the status under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is nullified i.e., the person subjected to such proclamation, by virtue of subsequent developments is no longer required to be presented before a Court of law. Then, can the prosecution still proceed against such a person for having not appeared before a Court during the time that the process was in effect. The answer is in the affirmative.”
“In conclusion, we hold that Section 174A IPC is an independent, substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation under Section 82, Cr.P.C. is extinguished. It is a stand-alone offence,” the Court observed.
Consequently, the Court held, “The Appellant has been acquitted which means that there is no case for which his presence is required to be secured. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, i.e. that the original offence pertains to the year 2010; the money subject matter of dispute stands paid, the judgment of the High Court with the particulars as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment, stands quashed and set aside. All criminal proceedings, inclusive of the FIR under Section 174A IPC, shall stand closed. The Appellant’s status, as a ‘proclaimed person’ stands quashed.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Daljit Singh v. State Of Haryana & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 21)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Sugandh Rathor, Mayank Dahiya and Bhupinder; AOR Ajay Pal
Respondents: AAG Raj Singh Rana; Advocates Sabarni Som, Fateh Singh, Nepal Singh, Kanika, Aman Dev Sharma and Keshav Mittal; AOR Samar Vijay Singh
