Can’t say ‘person at large’ if abroad before issuing warrant, says High Court

A person cannot be dubbed as “absconding” when he has gone to a distant place before the warrant was issued, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed. The court asserted that the person, under the circumstances, could not be accused of evading the execution of warrant.

Advertisement

Referring to judicial precedents in the matter, Justice Sandeep Moudgil asserted that it was held that “a person who had gone abroad even before issuing the warrant of arrest cannot be said to be absconding or concealing himself with the intention to disrupt the execution of that warrant”.

The assertion came in a case of person, who was a UK resident since 2006 –– well before the registration of the FIR. The matter was placed before Justice Moudgil’s Bench after the petitioner sought the quashing of proclamation order passed by an additional chief judicial magistrate in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case registered under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner contended that her son had filed a divorce petition. The complainant-wife turned furious after she received the summons on April 9, 2014. She lodged a complaint the next day leading to the registration of an FIR against the petitioner, her husband, son, and daughter. The petitioner submitted that she came to know that she had been falsely shown as residing at an Indian address.

The state’s stand in the matter was the petitioner was evading the process of court. Her failure to comply with the orders showed lack of respect for the same. “A person who obstructs the process of law and evades it does not deserve any concession,” it was added.

Justice Moudgil clarified that a proclamation under Section 82 of the CrPC might be issued against an individual by a court if it was reasonably believed that the person had absconded or was hiding, making it impossible for the warrant to be carried out.

“From the perusal of the case file as well from the support of the documents it can be inferred that the petitioner is a resident of UK and has been a citizen since 2006. Therefore, there was no occasion for her to evade the process of law intentionally, as she was never served in accordance with law. Thus the proclamation order dated March 16, 2015, is in gross violation of Section 82 of the CrPC,” the court observed while setting aside the impugned order as bad in law and not sustainable.

Verdict reinforces legal safeguard

The judgment stands out as significant – despite the existence of precedents– for reinforcing the legal safeguard that individuals cannot be labelled as absconders simply for being abroad before the warrant was issued. The judgment makes it clear that Section 82 of the CrPC is not intended to be misused by alleging evasion of the process without genuine grounds. The judgment reasserts the requirement that proclamations must be based on bona fide absconding or concealment.