Does Bar U/S 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC Apply To Non-Appearance Of Proclaimed Offender Punishable U/S 174A IPC? Delhi HC Refers Issue To Large Bench

For context, Section 174-A, added through an amendment in 2005 and enacted in 2006, penalizes the non-appearance of a proclaimed offender at a specified time and place. Section 174-A

Section 195 Cr.P.C related to prosecution for contempt of public servants' lawful authority, for offences against public justice. It is to be noted that Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C requires that cognizance of offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC to be only taken upon a complaint in writing by a public servant.

Justice Subramonium Prasad was considering the appellant's challenge to his conviction under Section 174A IPC along with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act.

The appellant contended that in the absence of any complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C, the Trial Court could not have taken cognizance under Section 174A IPC.

The appellant relied on the Supreme Court's decision in C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. (2010), where it was observed that cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC cannot be taken in the absence of a complaint by a public servant, in view of the bar under Section 195 C.r.P.C.

Here, the High Court noted that in the above judgment, the principal offence was Section 302 IPC and along with it the accused was charged under Section 188 IPC.

The appellant further pointed out that after the insertion of Section 174-A IPC, an amendment was made to Section 195(1)(b) Cr. P.C in 2006 but not to Section 195(1)(a). He argued that while inserting Section 174-A IPC, the legislature was well aware about the category of offences u/s 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.PC and intentionally left it unchanged.

However, the Court did not accept this argument and opined that as Section 195 Cr.P.C. includes all offences punishable under Sections 172-188 IPC, 174A IPC would have been automatically included in it.

“The said argument cannot be accepted for the reason that Section 195 Cr.P.C. includes all offences punishable under Sections 172-188 IPC (both inclusive) and, therefore, insertion of Section 174A IPC does not warrant any consequential amendment because Section 174A IPC would automatically have been included under the ambit of Section 195 Cr.P.C. In any event, it cannot be said that the Legislature has committed mistake by keeping Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr. P.C. untouched.”

The Court referred to Amandeep Gill & Anr vs. State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi (2024), where a single bench of Delhi High Court held that cognizance of an offence under Section 174-A IPC is covered by the bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. The Court observed that one cannot assume a careless omission by the legislature and fill in by judicial interpretation.

Furthermore, the respondent relied on Maneesh Goomer v. State (2012), where a single bench of the Delhi High Court held that Section 174-A IPC was not covered by the bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C.

In view of the conflicting opinions, the Court referred the issue to a larger bench. It stated, “Though, the coordinate Bench of this Court in Amandeep Gill (supra) has proceeded ahead to quash the complaint but this Court is of the opinion that in view of the cleavage between Maneesh Goomer (supra) & Amandeep Gill (supra) and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in C. Muniappan (supra), this question must be referred to a larger Bench to resolve the issue.”

The Court thus directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for constituting an appropriate larger Bench to consider the issue.

Case title: Ubabueze Chijioke Emmaunle @ Jojo vs. State (CRL.A. 507/2024 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1205/2024)