Accused Who Absconded Can Be Prosecuted Under S.174A IPC Even If Proclamation Under S.82 CrPC Is Extinguished : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that while a proclamation issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. cannot be enforced if the underlying case is quashed, the accused may still be penalized under Section 174A IPC for failing to appear in response to the proclamation, as it constitutes an independent offence arising from the initial proclamation.

The bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol was hearing the case where the Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to quash the proclamation issued against the Appellant in response to non-appearance in the cheque dishonor case in which he was already exonerated. Also, the High Court refused to quash the offence made out under Section 174A of IPC for failing to appear in response to the proclamation.

Section 174A IPC, inserted by the 2005 Amendment to the Indian Penal Code inserts a substantive offence, prescribing punishment of three years or fine or both when such proclamation is issued under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. and, seven years and fine if the said proclamation is under Sub-section (4) thereof. The object and purpose of this Section is to ensure penal consequences for defiance of a Court order requiring a person's presence. 

Disagreeing with one part of the High Court's decision, the Court observed that “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.”

However, the Court posed the question: “can the prosecution still proceed against such a person (under Section 174A IPC) for having not appeared before a Court during the time that the process was in effect”

Answering in affirmative, the judgment authored by Karol J. held 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.”

That being the position of the law, the Court upon perusing the facts of the case observed that since the Appellant-Accused was already out on bail in relation to offence under Section 174A IPC after a compromise was recorded between the complainant and the Accused, and the money subject matter of dispute stands paid, therefore the Court also quashed the pending criminal proceedings under Section 174A IPC.

“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.”, the court observed.

Case Title: DALJIT SINGH Versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 12

Click here to read/download the judgment