NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said a man who failed to appear in response to a proclamation order can still face prosecution even if the order under Section 82, CrPC is extinguished, as the offence mentioned under Section 174A IPC is an independent, stand alone and substantive offence, which can continue thereafter.
A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol noted Section 174A IPC, inserted in by the 2005 Amendment to the Indian Penal Code, related to a substantive offence, prescribing punishment of three years or fine or both when such proclamation is issued under Section 82(1) CrPC and, seven years and fine if the said proclamation is under Subsection (4).
SC Clarifies Section 174A IPC: Offence Stands Independent of Proclamation Order
Considering whether Section 174A IPC can stand independent of the proclamation under Section 82 CrPC or not, the bench said the object and purpose of this Section is to ensure penal consequences for defiance of a Court order requiring a person’s presence.
In a judgment, the bench examined a question as to what happens if the status under Section 82 CrPC 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 and if the prosecution can still proceed against such a person for having not appeared before a court during the time that the process was in effect.
Prosecution Valid for Non-Appearance Despite Extinguished Proclamation: Supreme Court
"The answer is in the affirmative," Justice Karol wrote in the January 2, 2025 judgment on behalf of the bench.
Section 174A, IPC says “whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by proclamation”. The court pointed out the very instance at which a person is directed to appear, and he does not do so, this Section comes into play.
The non-appearance becomes an infraction of the Section, and therefore, prosecution therefor would be independent of Section 82, CrPC being in effect, it held.
"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 CrPC 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," the bench said.
Dealing with an appeal filed by Daljit Singh, the court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order, closed all criminal proceedings, inclusive of the FIR under Section 174A IPC, and quashed his status, as a proclaimed person.
Singh filed the plea in the court after the High Court's refusal to quash the complaint of June 8, 2010, summoning order on August 17, 2010, order of November 28, 2016 declaring him a proclaimed offender by a Bhiwani court.
The bench, however, found the FIR under Section 174A IPC was registered against Singh but he has has subsequently been acquitted, so there was no case for which his presence was required to be secured.
