Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

FIRs Under Section 174A IPC Are Void Ab Initio If Not Preceded by Proper Proclamation: Punjab & Haryana High Court"

03 March 2025 2:40 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Summons and Bailable Warrants Must Come First—Proclamation Cannot Be Issued Arbitrarily - In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court, through Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, has quashed multiple FIRs registered under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against petitioner Meena Pothireddy. The Court held that the trial courts failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person.

"It is well settled that a person cannot be declared a proclaimed offender without adherence to due process. The issuance of a proclamation must be preceded by summons and bailable warrants. The failure to do so renders the entire proceedings legally unsustainable," the Court observed.

Holding that the petitioner’s proclamation was vitiated due to non-compliance with procedural safeguards, the Court ruled that all subsequent actions, including the registration of FIRs under Section 174A IPC, were illegal.

"Prosecution Under Section 174A IPC Cannot Be Based on an FIR—Cognizance Must Be Taken Only Through a Written Complaint"
The petitioner had challenged the FIRs on the ground that they were barred by Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC, which mandates that no court shall take cognizance of offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC unless a written complaint is filed by a public servant.

"The law is clear: an offence under Section 174A IPC cannot be prosecuted based on a police report. Section 195 CrPC specifically prohibits courts from taking cognizance of such offences unless a written complaint is made by a public servant," the Court held.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567, the Court reiterated that the provisions of Section 195 CrPC are mandatory and that any prosecution undertaken in violation of this section is void ab initio.

"When the legislature has laid down a specific procedure, courts cannot permit its circumvention. Section 195 CrPC serves as a safeguard against frivolous prosecutions. A mere police report cannot set the criminal law in motion for offences covered under this provision," the judgment stated.

"Declaring a Person a Proclaimed Offender Without Following Section 82 CrPC Violates Article 21"
The Court emphasized that the failure to comply with Section 82 CrPC resulted in a direct violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

"The scheme of the criminal justice system necessitates some curtailment of personal liberty, but such curtailment must conform to the procedure established by law. Any deviation from this principle leads to arbitrariness and an erosion of constitutional rights," the Court remarked.

The Court observed that in the petitioner’s case, no summons or bailable warrants were issued before the proclamation. There was also no satisfaction recorded that she was absconding or willfully evading legal proceedings.

"When the State seeks to prosecute an individual, it must ensure that every step of the procedure is in strict compliance with the law. The absence of proper service of summons or warrants makes the entire process defective and unconstitutional," the judgment declared.

"Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes All FIRs and Proclamation Orders Against the Petitioner"
Finding that the proclamation orders and subsequent FIRs were legally unsustainable, the Court allowed the petitions and quashed all proceedings against the petitioner.

"The impugned orders, having been passed without adherence to the mandatory requirements of Section 82 CrPC, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The consequential FIRs under Section 174A IPC, being in contravention of Section 195 CrPC, also stand quashed," the Court concluded.

The ruling reaffirms that courts must strictly follow procedural safeguards before declaring an individual a proclaimed offender. It also clarifies that an offence under Section 174A IPC cannot be prosecuted through an FIR, but only through a written complaint by a public servant.

"In the administration of justice, shortcuts cannot be permitted. Any action taken in violation of statutory provisions is null and void. The rule of law must prevail," the Court emphasized.

Date of Decision: January 29, 2025
 

Latest Legal News