Proclaimed Absconder Cannot Seek Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings Under Section 528 BNSS: Allahabad High Court

"Applicants deliberately left India... knowing that they could be arrested in this case. This act of the applicants appears that they are deliberately flouting the process of law... the present application filed on behalf of the applicants, who have been declared to be proclaimed absconder is not maintainable." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, held that an accused who has been declared a proclaimed absconder cannot maintain an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to quash criminal proceedings.

A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh observed that individuals deliberately evading the due process of law are not entitled to invoke the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of the High Court.

The case arose from an FIR lodged by South Indian Bank against an Assistant Manager, Rahul Sharma, and his family members. The bank alleged a criminal conspiracy resulting in the misappropriation of approximately Rs. 28.07 crores belonging to a corporate customer, which was allegedly diverted into accounts held by Sharma's wife and mother. Following the initiation of an internal vigilance inquiry, Sharma and his wife fled to the United Arab Emirates, prompting the investigating agency to initiate proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC, eventually declaring them proclaimed absconders. The present quashing application was filed through Sharma's sister.

The primary question before the court was whether a quashing application under Section 528 BNSS is maintainable when filed on behalf of an accused who has been declared a proclaimed absconder. The court was also called upon to determine whether criminal proceedings could be quashed at the pre-trial stage by evaluating the disputed facts and the defense of the accused.

Absconders Not Entitled To Equitable Relief

The court heavily relied on Supreme Court precedents to underline that extraordinary powers cannot be exercised in favour of those defying the law. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, the High Court reiterated that a person who remains out of reach of the investigating agency stands in direct conflict with the law and deserves no concession.

Quoting the Apex Court's stance in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, the bench noted that a person continuously defying court orders and absconding is not entitled to seek extraordinary equitable relief. The court emphasized that the inherent jurisdiction cannot be weaponized by an individual actively evading the judicial process.

Deliberate Evasion Of Legal Process

The bench rejected the applicants' argument that they were unable to return to India because their passports had been impounded by the Government. The court noted that the couple deliberately left India right after the bank's initial complaint and before the formal FIR, fully aware of their impending arrest.

"The applicants deliberately left India after making complaint by the Bank and before lodging of the first information report against them, knowing that they could be arrested in this case. This act of the applicants appears that they are deliberately flouting the process of law of India," the judgment stated.

No Mini-Trial Under Section 528 BNSS

Transitioning to the merits of the case, the court clarified the scope of its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, which corresponds to Section 482 of the CrPC. The bench emphasized that at the pre-trial stage, the court cannot adjudicate on disputed questions of fact or evaluate the probable defense of the accused.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CBI v. Aryan Singh, the bench observed that the court has a very limited jurisdiction when deciding quashing petitions. The High Court stressed that it is not required to conduct a mini-trial or enter into an appreciation of evidence before the actual trial commences.

Embezzlement Of Public Money Requires Detailed Inquiry

The High Court observed that the allegations involved the siphoning of massive public funds, which were prima facie supported by witness statements and police records. Consequently, the court held that the issue of why such funds were transferred into the applicants' accounts must be examined during a full-fledged trial, not stifled at the threshold.

The High Court refused to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction, concluding that the FIR was neither frivolous nor vexatious. Holding that a prima facie cognizable offence was made out and that the application was legally unmaintainable due to the applicants' absconding status, the court dismissed the application in its entirety.

Date of Decision: 21 July 2026