FIR Under Section 174-A IPC Without Complaint By Public Servant Is Void – Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Proclaimed Person Declaration For Procedural Violation

“Where Law Prescribes A Manner, It Must Be Followed Or Not Done At All” – In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 29th April 2025, quashed the proclamation proceedings and the consequential FIR registered against Himanshu Narang under Section 174-A IPC, citing violations of procedural safeguards under Section 82 CrPC and Section 195 CrPC. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition CRM-M-14756-2025, observing that the trial court’s order suffered from “incurable illegality” and disregarded the mandatory legal process.

“The law mandates that the court cannot take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC, including Section 174-A IPC, except upon a written complaint by a concerned public servant under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of CrPC,” the Court said, emphasizing the statutory bar applicable in the petitioner’s case.

The matter arose when the petitioner, facing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was declared proclaimed person by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samalkha, on 29.04.2023. An FIR bearing No. 532 dated 09.06.2023 under Section 174-A IPC was subsequently registered by police. The petitioner challenged these proceedings, alleging non-compliance with Section 82 CrPC and violation of Section 195 CrPC.

“The trial court straightaway issued proclamation without first taking necessary steps like issuing summons or bailable warrants, nor did it record satisfaction regarding the accused’s deliberate abscondence. Such failure to follow the due process invalidates the proclamation proceedings,” the Court noted.

Justice Brar referred to the Supreme Court’s authoritative rulings, including Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1206, which mandates that in absence of a complaint by a public servant, cognizance of such offences is void ab initio. The High Court reiterated that registration of FIR in such circumstances, based solely on a Magistrate’s order forwarded to police, violates the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 195 CrPC.

“The cognizance of the case was wrongly assumed by the court without a complaint in writing of the public servant. The trial was thus without jurisdiction ab initio and the conviction cannot be maintained,” the Court quoted from Daulat Ram case while explaining the illegality in the petitioner’s case.

Justice Brar further underlined that personal liberty is a cherished right under Article 21 of the Constitution and any restriction on it must strictly conform to the “procedure established by law” which must be fair, just, and reasonable.

“When a statute prescribes a particular procedure for doing a thing, it must be done in that manner alone or not at all. Alternative modes are legally impermissible,” the Court added, referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 5 SCC 480.

The Court also took serious note of the absence of any prior coercive steps before declaring the petitioner proclaimed person. It found that the trial court neither issued summons nor bailable warrants nor recorded any satisfaction regarding absconding, thereby breaching Section 82 CrPC.

“The procedure under Section 82 CrPC was completely bypassed. Issuing proclamation without prior steps and without recording reasons is illegal and the resultant proceedings stand vitiated,” the Court held.

Relying on recent judgments like Major Singh @ Major v. State of Punjab, 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406, the Court concluded that both the order of proclamation and the FIR were void due to the illegality in procedure and lack of jurisdiction.

“In the eventuality of non-appearance, the court must exhaust summons and bailable warrants before issuing proclamation. This sequence was admittedly not followed in the petitioner’s case,” Justice Brar ruled.

Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and quashed both the proclamation order and the resultant FIR, restoring the petitioner’s fundamental right to liberty in accordance with due process.

“In view of the facts and law, the impugned order declaring the petitioner proclaimed person and FIR No. 532 dated 09.06.2023 under Section 174-A IPC, along with all subsequent proceedings, are hereby quashed,” the Court concluded.

Date of Decision: 29th April 2025