-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
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