Delhi court sets aside order declaring man absconder, cites non-compliance with CrPC provisions

Delhi court sets aside order declaring man absconder, cites non-compliance with CrPC provisions

New Delhi, A Delhi court has set aside a trial court order declaring a man an absconder in a 2015 case, holding that the mandatory provisions under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not strictly complied with.

Delhi court sets aside order declaring man absconder, cites non-compliance with CrPC provisions

Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pertains to the issuance of a written proclamation requiring an absconding person.

Additional Sessions Judge Anuj Agrawal allowed the criminal revision petition filed by Jagdish Kumar against a magisterial court order dated March 26, 2024, declaring him an absconder.

The judge observed that proceedings under Section 82 of the CrPC are "not routine in nature" and carry "serious penal consequences", including attachment of property and exposure to prosecution under Section 174A of the IPC.

"The court must record its satisfaction that the person against whom a warrant has been issued has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed.

"Such satisfaction must be founded on material demonstrating due and sincere efforts to execute process at all known addresses," the court said in its order dated February 17.

The judge noted that non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings were executed only at one address in Vishwakarma Colony, while the chargesheet reflected more than one address of the accused.

"In the present case, absence of service attempts at all known addresses strikes at the very root of the proclamation proceedings.

"Unless it is shown that the accused was duly served or that exhaustive and bona fide efforts were made to execute warrants at all available addresses and he still could not be apprehended due to deliberate concealment, the drastic step of proclamation cannot be sustained," the court observed.

Calling the earlier order "mechanical", the court held that it did not record its satisfaction that the person against whom a warrant has been issued has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed and requires issuance of a proclamation.

"The court must apply its judicial mind and record reasons demonstrating compliance with the statutory preconditions before declaring a person an absconder. Mechanical reproduction of procedural steps without substantive compliance vitiates the proceedings," the judge said.

Holding that the foundational requirement under Section 82 of the CrPC had not been satisfied, the court said the declaration of Kumar as an absconder could not be sustained and set aside the impugned order.

This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.