Proclaimed Offender Intentionally Evading Law Cannot Seek Quashing Of FIR Through Power Of Attorney: Uttarakhand High Court

"It is settled principle of law... that an accused, who is declared to be a proclaimed offender cannot seek leave for quashing of an FIR or any such proceeding arising thereof without surrendering, the court will not exercise its extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction in favour of an individual, who is intentionally evading the process of law," Uttarakhand High Court, in a significant ruling, held that an accused person declared as a proclaimed offender is barred from invoking the court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC through a Power of Attorney holder.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal observed that such individuals cannot be permitted to use the legal process to circumvent the requirement of surrendering before the law while continuing to evade investigation and trial.

The case arose from a dispute between the firms of the applicant, Rakesh Mehra, and entities including "Divya Pharmacy" and "Patanjali Ayurveda Limited." An FIR was lodged in 2022 alleging offenses under Sections 420 and 506 of the IPC after the applicant’s firms allegedly failed to supply goods despite receiving substantial payments. While the applicant's daughters joined the investigation and were charge-sheeted, Rakesh Mehra remained abroad and was subsequently declared a "proclaimed offender" under Section 82 of the CrPC.

The primary question before the court was whether a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing a charge-sheet and cognizance order is maintainable when filed by a proclaimed offender through a Power of Attorney holder. The court also examined whether a commercial dispute involving alleged siphoning of funds can be quashed on the grounds of being purely civil in nature.

Maintainability Of Petition Through Power Of Attorney

The Court first addressed the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition filed by Rakesh Mehra through his son-in-law, acting as a Power of Attorney holder. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in T.C. Mathai vs. District and Session Judge (1999), the Bench noted that the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the appearance of the accused in person. The Court emphasized that an instrument of Power of Attorney is of no avail in criminal proceedings where personal attendance is mandatory unless specifically dispensed with by a Magistrate.

Absconders Cannot Seek Inherent Jurisdiction

The Bench held that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC are meant to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. However, these powers cannot be exercised in favor of an individual who is intentionally evading the judicial process. The Court observed that since Rakesh Mehra had been declared a proclaimed offender and a lookout circular (LOC) had been issued against him, he was not entitled to seek extraordinary relief without first surrendering.

"The question is whether such an affidavit can be taken into consideration in order to cover up the lacuna. This court is of the firm opinion that such an affidavit is of no use, but to anyhow to evade the process of law."

No Absolute Embargo On Criminal Action In Commercial Disputes

Addressing the argument that the matter was a "simplicitor" commercial transaction, the Court noted that during the investigation, documentary evidence including Audit reports suggested that the applicant had siphoned off approximately Rs. 31.25 crore by diverting funds into the accounts of his daughters. The Bench held that the existence of a commercial relationship or a contractual arrangement does not automatically exclude the application of criminal law.

Co-existence Of Civil And Criminal Liability

The Court reiterated the established legal principle that civil and criminal liability can co-exist. If a complaint discloses a cognizable offense, it must be tried on its own merits, even if the facts also give rise to a civil remedy. The Bench stated that it cannot meticulously appreciate evidence or adjudicate upon its probative value at the stage of a quashing petition under Section 482 of the CrPC or under writ jurisdiction.

"The test in such cases is whether a civil remedy is available to the complainant but if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence and then is tried on the same set of facts, civil and criminal liability co-exist and existence of one does not exclude the other."

Dismissal Of Petitions And Vacation Of Interim Orders

The Court found no merit in either the petition filed by the father or the one filed by his daughters. It noted that the process of the lookout circular was essential to ensure the availability of the accused for trial and to prevent the circumvention of justice. Consequently, the Court dismissed both petitions, vacated all interim stay orders previously granted, and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with the law.

The ruling reinforces the principle that the High Court will not extend its protective umbrella to those who actively flee from the law. By dismissing the petitions, the Court has signaled that the cloak of a "civil dispute" cannot be used to mask alleged criminal siphoning of funds, especially when the accused fails to submit to the jurisdiction of the trial court.

Date of Decision: 17 June 2026