The High Court
Case Details
IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH PUNJAB & HARYANA 204 Ranjeet Singh State of Punjab CRM-M-45981 Date of decision: 45981-2024(O&M) decision: 04.11.2025 ...Petitioner VERSUS ...Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CORAM : HON'BLE Mr. Vicky Sharma and Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Present :- Mr. for VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Dhaliwal, Advocates, the petitioner. Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punjab. Mr. ***** Punjab. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed The filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing quashing of case bearing FIR No.203 dated 07.09.2021, 07.09.2021, registered under Section Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station City Samana, Dis District Patiala alongwith all proceedings arising arising therefrom in view of the judgment dated 04.07.2024 passed by Judicial Judicial Magistrate First Class, Samana, Samana, whereby the petitioner had been acquitted acquitted in the main case bearing FIR
Legal Reasoning
FIR No.100 dated 26.06.2013 registered under under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station City City Samana, District Patiala. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel appearing on behalf Learned behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner petitioner is a long-standing patient of of brain haemorrhage and has been under continuous continuous medical supervision at PGIMER, Chandigarh since his return from England in 2011. He submits that that an FIR bearing No. 100 dated 26.06.2013 26.06.2013 was registered at Police Station Station City Samana, District Patiala, on the complaint complaint of one Nirmal Singh, wh who alleged that his wife had died in a car accident, accident, and that the said vehicle vehicle was being driven by the petitioner. The petitioner was granted bail in the said case and had been SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.10 19:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 204 CRM-M-45981-2024(O&M) CRM 2 regularly appearing appearing before the Court. However, However, owing to a deterioration in his health, the doctors advised that he undergo undergo specialized neurological treatment in the the United States of America. Consequently, in emergent medical circumstances, circumstances, the petitioner travelled travelled to the U.S.A. in 2015 for treatment, and thus failed to appear before the he Court on 21.08.2015. As notices could not not be served upon him due to his his absence from the country, non-bailable warrants warrants were issued, though the same remained unexecuted. Nevertheless, proclamation proclamation proceedings were initiated, initiated, and by order dated 09.08.2016, the the petitioner was declared a proclaimed proclaimed offender. Counsel further submits that the petitioner subsequently subsequently approached this Hon‘ble Court by way of of CRM-M-51064-2023 seeking quashing of the order dated 09.08.2016 declaring declaring him a proclaimed offender. offender. Vide order dated 10.10.2023, the petitioner was directed to appear appear and surrender before the learned Trial Court. Court. In compliance, the petitioner petitioner appeared before the Trial Court, furnished furnished bail bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/ 25,000/-, and was released on bail. The trial th thereafter proceeded to its logical conclusion, culminating in a judgment of acquittal acquittal dated 04.07.2024, which has has since attained finality. 3. It is is thus contended that since the proceedings proceedings arising out of the main FIR, in which which the petitioner had been decl declared a proclaimed person, have already culminated culminated in his acquittal, the continuation of proceedings under Section 174 174-A IPC, pursuant to FIR No. 203 203 dated 07.09.2021, would serve no purpose purpose and amount to an exercise in futility. Learned counsel submits that the the petitioner‘s non-appearance before before the Court was neither deliberate nor wilful but solely due to the the medical exigencies and SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.10 19:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 204 CRM-M-45981-2024(O&M) CRM 3 circumstances elaborated elaborated hereinabove. It is further further argued that the petitioner, having voluntarily voluntarily surrendered to the process of of law and thereafter having been honourably honourably acquitted, the continuance of of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would would amount to an unnecessary and unjustified wastage of precious judicial judicial time. 4. Counsel for the State, on the other Counsel other hand, contends that it is an admitted position position that the petitioner had remained remained absent during the course of trial, leading to the passing of the order of proclamation, proclamation, which was duly warranted in the the circumstances. He, however, however, does not dispute that the petitioner has since since been acquitted vide judgment judgment dated 04.07.2024 in the main FIR No. 100 100 dated 26.06.2013, registered registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station City Samana, Samana, District Patiala. 5. I have have heard learned counsel appearing appearing on behalf of the respective parties parties and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition. 6. Undisputedly, the FIR in question had Undisputedly, had been registered pursuant to the order dated dated 09.08.2016 passed by the Court. Court. A period of nearly five years elapsed before before the FIR was registered against against the petitioner herein and even as per the status status report dated 02.12.2024, the the investigation in the case is reported to be pending. pending. The relevant extract of of the response by the State reads thus:- “12. That the investigation in FIR “12. No.203/2021 U/s 174 A IPC is ongoing ongoing and the same has not yet yet been completed.” SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.10 19:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 204 7. CRM-M-45981-2024(O&M) CRM 4 Hence, despite a lapse of more than Hence, than 9 years since passing of the order, the final report report has not been filed. 8. Significantly, Significantly, the petitioner appeared appeared before the Court, surrendered, and and was released on regular bail. He was eventually acquitted in the case bearing bearing FIR No.100 dated 26.06.2013 26.06.2013 vide judgment dated 04.07.2024. It would would now be prudent also to refer refer to Section 174-A IPC. The same reads thus: thus:- “174A. Non-appearance in response “174A. response to a proclamation under section 82 of Act 2 of 1974.— Whoever section Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified specified specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub- proclamation -section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 1973 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may imprisonment may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and where a with a declaration has been made under sub section (4) of that section under section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished proclaimed punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven seven years and shall also be liable to fine.” liable 9. Undisputedly, the proclamation against Undisputedly, against the petitioner was under Section 82(1) of of the Cr.P.C. which reads thus:- “82. Proclamation for person absconding. “82. absconding.—(1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after has after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant any warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself absconded himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified requiring specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from time from the date of publishing such proclamation. proclamation. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.10 19:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 204 CRM-M-45981-2024(O&M) CRM 5 (2) The proclamation shall be published published as follows:— (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous shall conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily village ordinarily resides; (b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of affixed of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides which resides or to some conspicuous place ace of such town or village; (c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some some conspicuous part of the Court Court-house; (ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy also, copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating published circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.” such 10. Even if the procedural aspects Even aspects as regards recording of satisfaction etc. are not disputed, it is required required to be kept in mind that the matter is nearly nearly 9 years old and is pending investigation investigation still. Reference to Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cr.P.C. would thus be significant. significant. The same is extracted as under:- “468. Bar to taking cognizance after “468. after lapse of the period of limitation. limitation. (1) Except as otherwise provided provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall shall be – (a) six months, if the offence offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.10 19:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 204 CRM-M-45981-2024(O&M) CRM 6 (3) For the purposes of this section, ection, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.” 11. It is is evident from the above that law law prohibits taking cognizance of offence after after a period of 03 years where offence is punishable with imprisonment not not exceeding 03 years. Undisputedly, Undisputedly, Section 174-A provides for a sentence of upto 03 years in proclamation under Section 82(1). 12. The present case being under the category The category as above, cognizance of the FIR would would currently be barred in view of of the limitation as prescribed under Section 468 468 Cr.P.C. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of The of Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana reported reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1has has clarified that while Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is intended intended to secure the presence of an accused by declaring declaring him an absconder for evading evading legal process, Section 174A of the Indian Indian Penal Codecreates a distinct distinct substantive offence for failure to appear appear in compliance with such a proclamation. proclamation. The offence under Section 174A is is complete the moment the accused accused fails to appear at the specified time and and place and may continue even even if the proclamation under Section 82 is subsequently subsequently withdrawn. However, However, if the accused is ultimately acquitted of the principal offence for which the proclamation was issued, the proceedings under subsist. under Section 174A would not subsist. 13. Taking Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances elaborated hereinabove hereinabove including the fact that the petitioner already stands SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.10 19:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 204 CRM-M-45981-2024(O&M) CRM 7 acquitted in the main case bearing FIR No.100 No.100 dated 26.06.2013 registered under Sections 279, 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, Code, 1860 at Police Station City Samana, District District Patiala and the said judgment judgment having attained finality alongwith the deteriorating health conditions conditions of the petitioner and the operation of Section Section 468 Cr.P.C, I am of the opinion opinion that continuance of the proceedings would would be an exercise which would be futile and undue waste of valuable judicial judicial time. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the present For present petition is allowed. The FIR No.203 dated dated 07.09.2021, registered under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 1860 at Police Station City Samana, Samana, District Patiala and all consequential proceedings proceedings arising thereform are hereby quashed. 15. Pending application(s), if any, shall Pending
Decision
shall stand disposed of. 04.11.2025 Sumit Gusain (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) (VINOD JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned speaking/reasoned reportable Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.10 19:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document