The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 4359 of 2024, dated January 2, 2025, addressed critical issues concerning the interplay between Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The case revolved around the legality of continued prosecution under Section 174A of the IPC after the nullification of a proclamation issued under Section 82 of the CrPC, especially when the accused has been acquitted of the primary offence.
Background of the Case
The Appellant ran a business concern which was awarded a contract for 8-laning of a National Highway within Delhi by the National Highways Authority of India. A dispute arose due to alleged non-compliance with agreed specifications for the material supplied, leading to the termination of the contract by NHAI. Respondent No. 2 filed a Complaint against the Appellant over a cheque issued as a security. Summons were issued in the Complaint on August 17, 2010, and on the Appellant’s failure to appear, he was declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the CrPC by the Court on November 28, 2016. The Appellant was thereafter arrested under the proclaimed offender order on December 19, 2022, and was released on bail on the same day.
An FIR under Section 174A of the IPC was also registered against the Appellant. The Appellant preferred a quashing Petition challenging the Complaint, summoning order, as well as the order declaring the Appellant as proclaimed offender, before the High Court and the same was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated June 2, 2023. It was against this order that the Appellant filed an Appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that during the pendency of the Appeal, the Appellant was exonerated by the competent Court in the original offence in which the proclamation order was issued.
Legal Issues Raised in the Appeal
The Appeal raised three primary questions:
- Whether the status of a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the CrPC can subsist after acquittal in the underlying offence.
- Whether the prosecution under Section 174A of the IPC is independent of the continued subsistence of a proclamation under Section 82 of the CrPC.
- Whether prosecution under Section 174A of the IPC should subsist even when the accused is ultimately acquitted in the underlying offence.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court considered the gamut of judgments and pronouncements of the Court with respect to Section 82 of the CrPC and appreciated the purpose and intent of the said Section, which is mainly to compel and secure the presence of the accused. After considering the purpose and intent of Section 82 of the CrPC, the Court emphasised the nature of the offence provided under Section 174A IPC. Section 174A of the IPC lays down the penal consequences for intentionally evading the process under Section 82 of the CrPC.
Section 174A of the IPC was inserted by the 2005 amendment to the IPC, and it provides for a substantive offence on account of failure of a person to appear as required by a proclamation published under Section 82 of the CrPC, prescribing punishment of three years or fine or both when such proclamation is issued under Section 82(1) of the CrPC and seven years and fine if the said proclamation is under Section 82(4) of the CrPC. Thus, the object of Section 174A of the IPC is to ensure penal consequences for defiance of a Court’s order requiring a person’s presence.
The Supreme Court, after reading the impact of Section 174A of the IPC, held that the prosecution under that Section can still subsist against such a person for having not appeared before the Court during the time when the process was in effect, even after status under Section 82 of the CrPC is nullified, i.e., the person subjected to such proclamation, by virtue of subsequent developments is no longer required to be presented before the Court of law.
The Court noted that the language of Section 174A of the IPC says “whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by proclamation..”, and this implies that the very instance at which a person is directed to appear, and he does not do so, the Section comes into play, therefore, the question that the said person was ultimately exonerated or acquitted by the Court, is of no relevance. Thus, an instance of non-appearance becomes an infraction of the Section, and therefore, the prosecution is independent of Section 82 of the CrPC being in effect. This makes the said Section 174A of the IPC a stand-alone offence.
However, the Supreme Court also clarified that it is permissible in law for the Court seized of the trial under Section 174A of the IPC to take note of the further development with respect to the acquittal of the accused in the original offence in connection with which proceedings under Section 82 of the CrPC was initiated and treat the same as a ground to close the proceedings under Section 174A of the IPC if such a prayer is made and the circumstances of the case so warrant.
Application of Law and Analysis to Facts
The Appellant having been acquitted of the main offence and the monetary dispute resolved through a compromise, under these attending circumstances, the Supreme Court held that there is no case for which the Appellant’s presence is required to be secured. Resultantly, the Appellant’s status as a proclaimed offender should no longer subsist, and all the proceedings, including the FIR under Section 174A, were quashed.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court clarified the scope of Section 174A of the IPC, ruling it as an independent substantive offence. While prosecution under Section 174A of the IPC is contingent upon a valid proclamation under Section 82 CrPC at initiation, it is not nullified by subsequent development, such as the acquittal of the accused. However, ultimately, the Supreme Court took a pragmatic view, quashing all the criminal proceedings due to the Appellant’s acquittal and resolution of the underlying dispute. The judgment reinforces the balance between procedural compliance and substantive justice, ensuring that the consequent criminal process under Section 174A of the IPC does not continue unnecessarily after the resolution of the core issues and the acquittal of the accused in the main offence.
Authors: Manisha Singh and Nisha Sharma
First Published by: Mondaq Here