Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed under Section of the (‘CrPC’) seeking to quash the proclamation order dated 16-03-2015, Sandeep Moudgil, J., opined that a person could not be said to abscond or evade the execution of warrant when he had gone to a distant place before the issue of warrant. The Court opined that it was crystal clear that the petitioner has been shown to be a resident of Dadial village, Hoshiarpur but for all intents and purposes, petitioner’s residence was in UK, therefore, there was no occasion for him to evade the process of law intentionally, as he was never served in accordance with law. Thus, proclamation order dated 16-03-2015 was in gross violation of Section of the , and accordingly set aside the impugned order.
Background
In the present case, petitioner’s son filed a divorce petition and on 09-04-2014 summons was served upon petitioner’s son’s wife-complainant. After getting the summons, complainant became furious and with the help of her relatives, she filed a complaint on 13-04-2014. Based on this complaint, FIR was registered under Sections , and of the against petitioner, his wife, his son and daughter. Thereafter, proclamation order dated 16-03-2015 was passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, SBS Nagar (‘the Trial Court’).
It was asserted that petitioner came to know from his son that in a complaint, he had been shown residing at the address in India, whereas he was a British citizen and was residing abroad since 27-04-1988. Thus, petitioner asserted that by mentioning wrong address in the complaint , complainant had deliberately and with mala fide intention initiated an adverse proceedings against petitioner, which was in violation of Section .
Petitioner asserted that even otherwise also the proclamation order was liable to be set aside, as petitioner’s absence was neither intentional nor deliberate as prior to the registration of the FIR as well as complaint, he was not residing in India since having settled in UK in 1988. The FIR was registered on 21-05-2014, whereas during this time, petitioner was already in UK and had no knowledge about the proceedings initiated against him. Whereas respondent submitted that despite the proclamation, petitioner had failed to appear before the Trial Court. In addition to evading the process of court, petitioner’s non-compliance with the Court’s order showed that he had no respect for the Court’s order.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that a person could not be said to abscond or evade the execution of warrant when he had gone to a distant place before the issue of warrant. The Court opined that from the perusal of the case file, it could be inferred that petitioner was a UK reside and had been a citizen of UK since 1988. Further, it was crystal clear that the petitioner has been shown to be a resident of Dadial village, Hoshiarpur but for all intents and purposes, petitioner’s residence was in UK, therefore, there was no occasion for him to evade the process of law intentionally, as he was never served in accordance with law. Thus, proclamation order dated 16-03-2015 was in gross violation of Section of the .
The Court opined that the impugned order dated 16-03-2015, vide which petitioner was declared as proclaimed person was bad in law and not sustainable and accordingly, set aside the impugned order.
[Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-6246 of 2017, Order dated 15-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Aadil Boparai, Advocate for Rishma Verma, Advocate;
For the Respondent: Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab;
For the Complainant: Parvinder Singh, Advocate.
Buy Penal Code, 1860
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The post appeared first on .