CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

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