Issuing Summons Based on Unreliable Information is Highly Improbable and Unjustified : Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Proclamation Warrants

High Court finds procedural lapses in the trial court's issuance of proclamation warrants under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. against Prateek Rao. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, presided over by Justice Sandeep Moudgil, has quashed the proclamation warrants issued against Prateek Rao, the petitioner in a case against M/S A.K.J. Properties Pvt. Ltd. The court found the trial court's order procedurally flawed and not adhering to the mandatory provisions of Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

Prateek Rao had moved an application for exemption from personal appearance due to illness, supported by a medical certificate. Despite this, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram, declined the application and issued warrants for Rao's arrest. Subsequently, proclamation warrants under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. were issued when Rao was reportedly not residing at the given address, based on information from an unknown individual named Vijay.

Procedural Lapses in Issuance of Proclamation Warrants:Justice Sandeep Moudgil pointed out significant lapses in the trial court's procedure. According to Section 82 Cr.P.C., a proclamation can be issued if a person has absconded or is concealing himself to avoid arrest. The trial court had recorded that Rao was not residing at the provided address and issued proclamation warrants based on unverified information from Vijay. The High Court found this approach flawed, noting that relying on such uncertain information without proper verification does not justify the issuance of proclamation warrants.

The court emphasized that the trial court failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C., which necessitate a proclamation to be publicly read and affixed in specific locations. Additionally, the trial court lacked a mechanism to verify Rao's address, relying instead on unsubstantiated information. This, according to the High Court, rendered the issuance of proclamation warrants unjustified and procedurally defective.

Justice Moudgil remarked, "The trial Court itself has recorded that the petitioner is not residing at that address and made no further efforts to get the address for execution of the arrest warrant. Issuing summons through proclamation warrants under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. based on unreliable information is highly improbable and unjustified."

The High Court's quashing of the proclamation warrants underscores the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements in issuing such warrants. This judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's commitment to ensuring due process and rectifying procedural errors, thus safeguarding the rights of individuals against unjust legal actions. The decision is expected to influence future cases by reinforcing the importance of procedural correctness in judicial proceedings.

Date of Decision: July 12, 2024