Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case – Compromise between parties -- Proclaimed offender/ person -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Quashing of -- Respondent/complainant withdrew his complaint -- In such circumstances, the continuation of the prosecution of the petitioner u/s 174-A IPC would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law – Order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender and FIR registered u/s 174-A IPC are both quashed along with all subsequent proceedings.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 120-B, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 439 – Counterfeit currency case -- Proclaimed offender – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody since 19.12.2020 -- Charges framed, other co-accused, who faced the trial have already been acquitted by the trial Court – No other case against the petitioner -- Court deemed it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 439 – Acquittal of co-accused – Regular bail for proclaimed offender/Petitioner -- Contention that main accused was arrested and acquitted, under the circumstances, no case against the present petitioner is sustainable and he deserves to be granted the concession of regular bail -- Without going into the merits of the case, petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 8-13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Proclaimed person -- Service through proclamation for 21.01.2020 -- On 21.01.2020, the Court observed that since the period of 30 days had not elapsed, the case was further adjourned to 14.02.2020 for appearance of the petitioner --  On 14.02.2020, the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person – Held, while adjourning the case vide order dated 21.01.2020, mandatory period of 30 days could have been granted to the petitioner to appear before the trial Court -- Impugned order dated 14.02.2020 is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C – Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 14.02.2020 quashed.

(Para 2-7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 72, 73, 82 -- Non-bailable warrants at the stage of Investigaiton -- Power of Magistrate -- Non-bailable warrants can be issued for procuring attendance of a person before the Court and on police remand being granted, investigation can be carried out from such accused -- Petitioner has been evading her arrest at the hands of the police and has also evaded execution of warrants for her arrest issued by the Court -- Court can proceed to issue proclamation u/s 82 of the Code -- Issuance of non-bailable warrants by the Court, being sine-qua-non for initiation of proceedings u/s 82 of the Code, the Court was fully competent to issue non-bailable warrants.

(Para 2, 15)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Proclaimed Offender – Detailed order – Satisfaction of court -- Requirement of -- While declaring a Proclaimed Offender, a lengthy detailed order is not required to be passed and it is the material facts as regards compliance of procedure which are required to be noticed before proceeding to pass an order under Section 82(4) of the Code -- Satisfaction of the Court for issuance of proclamation would be recorded when an order initiating proclamation proceedings is passed u/s Section 82(1) of the Code.

(Para 15)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case -- Warrant remained unexecuted as accused-petitioner shifted – Proclamation on same address – Legality of – FIR u/s 174A of IPC – Sustainability of -- Without any basis, the Court formed an opinion that the petitioner is intentionally avoiding service and that he is either absconding or concealing himself -- Rather the Court was duty bound to ask the complainant to furnish his fresh address and ensure that the petitioner was duly served before commencing with the coercive process -- Held, trial Court was not required to invoke the provisions of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. -- Declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed person, and the consequent registration of the impugned FIR cannot be sustained.

(Para 10-12)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed person – Settlement between parties – Quashing of FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Entire amount of the cheque in dispute stands paid -- Complainant does not have any objection, in case, the impugned order and FIR are quashed -- Once there is an amicable settlement between the parties and the main petition u/s 138 of N.I. Act, wherein accused was declared as a proclaimed person, stands withdrawn, proceedings u/s 174-A IPC cannot be permitted to continue -- Impugned order and FIR u/s 174-A, IPC quashed along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

(Para 13, 14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 304-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Death by negligence driving -- Proclaimed person – Regular bail – Proceedings u/s 82 of the Cr.P.C. published on 02.08.2018 for 04.08.2018 and the proceedings were adjourned by the trial Court to 04.09.2018 to complete the requisite period of 30 days -- Argument that such a procedure is violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 82 – Considering period of incarceration, nature of allegation, gravity of offence and the fact that the mandatory provisions of Section 82 have apparently not been adhered to before declaring him as a Proclaimed offender and the trial is likely to take time due to spread of contagion, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars any further – Petition allowed.

(Para 3, 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. – Procedural lapse – Setting aside of -- Proclamation, issued on 24.11.2015 for 11.12.2015, does not fulfill the requirement of Section 82 as the period is less than the prescribed period of 30 days -- Bare fact that on 11.12.2015, the Court adjourned the trial so as to complete the requisite period of 30 days and declared the petitioner as proclaimed offender on 04.01.2016 also does not meet the mandate of the provision -- Petitioner was abroad -- No material to show that any effort was made to serve the accused-petitioner through the Ministry of External Affairs – Held, impugned order has been passed in violation of the procedure and provisions of Section 82 of the Code and the same cannot be sustained.

(Para 11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person -- FIR u/s 174-A of IPC – Settlement of complaint – Quashing of FIR -- Since the complaint u/s 138 of N.I.Act has been withdrawn, the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person has become redundant -- Under these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the aforementioned FIR alive -- FIR u/s 174-A of IPC quashed along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed offender – Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A of IPC – Petitioner had challenged the order, whereby he was declared as proclaimed offender and he was allowed interim bail and later the petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous as the petitioner had appeared before the trial Court and had been granted bail – Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner u/s 174-A would be nothing but an abuse of process of law – Petition allowed and FIR u/s 174-A IPC and all consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 376-D – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Jump of bail – Proclaimed offender -- Petitioners were allowed anticipatory bail by High Court but they failed to put in appearance during trial and warrants of arrest were un-executed -- Though the prosecutrix has already turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution, however, concession of anticipatory bail ought not to be allowed to a person who has been declared as proclaimed offender -- Court deemed appropriate to direct the petitioners to surrender before the trial Court within a period of one week and move appropriate application for bail -- In case they comply with the aforesaid directions their application for bail may be considered on the date so filed. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 171, relied.

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 323, 324, 326, 379, 382, 148, 149, 201 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Proclamation order – Challenge to – Bail to petitioner – Right of -- Objective of the coercive mechanism prescribed under the Cr.P.C. is to ensure that the accused remains present before the Court to receive the orders and punishments as are passed qua the accused -- If the accused shows his sincere intention and desire to appear before the Court, then it would not be unjustified to protect him from being arrested -- Petition disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to surrender before the trial Court within 10 days -- On doing so, petitioners ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds/surety bonds.

(Para 2-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Bail -- Proclamation at incomplete address – Effect of -- Even if it is presumed that the petitioner has been served, the proclamation proceedings initiated against the petitioner are not likely to be sustained because of his incomplete address on the proclamation notice – Order declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender set aside -- In case, the petitioner surrenders before the trial court within a period of one week, he shall be admitted on interim bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to its satisfaction.

(Para 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A, 420 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Proclaimed person -- Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A IPC -- Complaint u/s 138, 142 NI Act, 420 IPC compromised between the parties and the complainant has withdrawn the complaint – Held, continuation of the proceedings including the FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law -- Petition allowed, FIR u/s 174-A of IPC as well as all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, quashed.

(Para 7-9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 482 -- Proclaimed offender – Inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Anticipatory bail – Right of -- When an accused has been declared as a proclaimed offender, a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., impugning that order is not maintainable and accused should first move the Court which declared him a proclaimed offender and even an objection against validity of proclamation is required to be raised in the first instance before the Court which issued the proclamation and that power u/s 482 Cr.P.C., is not to be exercised in favour of a person, who is absconding or avoiding service -- If an accused is absconding and declared as a proclaimed offender, he should not be granted anticipatory bail -- Petition dismissed, petitioner directed to surrender before the trial Court and move application seeking regular bail. Mehnga Singh’s case 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 501 and Pradeep Sharma’s case 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 269 relied.

(Para 3,4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 452 and 307 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 439 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Proclaimed offender -- Petitioner was summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C -- Alleged co-accused had been acquitted -- Although, the petitioner was granted bail by the learned trial Court during the trial but due to his absence for a period of 1½ months was declared as proclaimed offender -- Petitioner himself surrendered and join the proceedings -- Considering the totality of circumstances petition allowed -- Petitioner admitted to bail.

(Para 9,10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case -- Complaint u/s 138 N.I. Act withdrawn – Order declaring proclaimed person -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Sustainability of -- 'No Due Certificate' issued by the Bank shows that the entire loan amount outstanding in the name of petitioner stood cleared – Thereupon, the Bank withdrew the complaint -- In such a situation, neither the impugned order nor the consequential FIR can be sustained -- Continuation of proceedings u/s 174-A, IPC shall be nothing but an abuse of process of law – Petition allowed, impugned order and the FIR quashed alongwith all subsequent proceedings.

(Para 4, 10-12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Proclamation order – 30 day notice – Requirement of --  A clear period of 30 days was not afforded to the petitioner-accused so as to cause his appearance before the court -- Thereafter, the matter was adjourned but no fresh proclamation was ordered to be issued – Such adjournment beyond 30 days cannot be treated as compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. -- Impugned order set aside – Direction given to surrender and also make the payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the complainant -- On his doing so, ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7,8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 438 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner ready to deposit 20% of cheque amount of Rs. 5 lacs – Held, if the accused shows his sincere intention and desire to appear before the Court, then it would not be unjustified to protect him from being arrested – Petition disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court within 10 days, on doing so, he shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court and further subject to the condition that he would deposit Rs. 1.00 lac with the trial Court by way of demand draft in favour of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class and the said demand draft be deposited in a fixed deposit with bank, fetching the maximum rate of interest.

(Para 3, 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 307, 427, 435, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 1959), Sections 25, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder case – Proclaimed offender – Regular bail -- During investigation, petitioner was found to be innocent -- Challan was presented against co-accused -- In a criminal complaint petitioner was also summoned and was ultimately declared as proclaimed offender – Challan as well as criminal complaint were clubbed and co-accused were convicted – Petitioner being P.O., FIR u/s 174-A IPC was recorded -- Petitioner has been granted bail in the said FIR -- Petitioner was also granted bail in FIR u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act and was released on bail -- Without adverting to the merits of the case, it can be appreciated that the petitioner was found to be innocent in FIR and his name was placed in column No.2 -- It was only in a criminal complaint that the petitioner was summoned along with others --Complicity of the petitioner would remain debatable -- It would be just and appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 2-15)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person/offender – Quashing petition on the basis of compromise between the parties -- Summoning order and order declaring proclaimed person/offender quashed.

(Para 5-8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Compromise in complaint -- Quashing of FIR -- Considering the fact that the complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act was compromised and later on the same was withdrawn -- Petitioner has also shown a bona fide cause for non-appearance before the trial Court -- Service was not effected at the ordinary place of residence of the petitioner and he was not aware of the said fact and immediately, on coming to know about the said order, the petitioner has compromised the matter with the complainant and the complaint u/s 138 of the Act was withdrawn later on -- Petition allowed FIR u/s Section 174-A IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, quashed. Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another, 2017, (3) L.A.R. 584 relied.

(Para 5-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 201, 364, 148, 149 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 439 -- Murder case – Proclaimed offender – Regular bail – Acquittal of other co-accused – Petitioner initially was declared a proclaimed offender/person but has been arrested and is now in custody for more than nine months – None of the witnesses out of the 13 prosecution witnesses cited, has been examined, with the prevailing pandemic, where the Courts are working in a restricted mode, the trial is not likely to commence soon or conclude in near future, the present petition is allowed – Petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 452, 427, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 439 – Proclaimed offender – Acquittal of other co-accused – Pendency of 9 other cases – Regular bail -- Petitioner was declared P.O. on 24.04.2011 and he surrendered on 15.01.2020 – Other three accused acquitted after trial, complainant turned hostile and other alleged eye-witness was not even examined -- Held, fate of the case practically stands sealed by the acquittal judgment in relation to the co-accused of the petitioner -- There is no possibility of the case improving against the petitioner at this stage -- Mere pendency of other FIRs may not be reason enough to deny bail to him -- Securing his custody for the purpose of the other cases through the process of this case would not be a lawful measure -- Petition allowed – Direction given to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 1-7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 438 -- Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Declaration of proclaimed person -- Anticipatory bail in FIR u/s 174-A IPC -- Subsequently, the petitioner had surrendered before the trial Court and, thereafter, he was released on bail by the trial Court in the main case – Petition allowed, petitioner granted concession of anticipatory bail.

(Para 5, 6)

Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 10 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed Person – Released on bail – Impounding of passport – Legality of – Petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, she was granted bail and, thus, the proclamation order ceased to be operative -- Said fact was well within the knowledge of respondent-Regional Passport Office -- Moreover, in a bailable offence, no condition can be imposed by the Court regarding surrender of the passport -- Fundamental Rights of the petitioner breached -- Hence, the impugned action is highly deprecated -- Petition allowed with a costs of Rs.1.00 lakh to be paid by respondent-RPO to the petitioner -- Respondent-RPO directed to release the passport of the petitioner within 15 days.

(Para 19-25)

Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 10(3)(b) – Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- FIR registered u/s 498-A, 323, 406, 506 IPC – Proclaimed offender – Seizure of passport – Fundamental right to travel abroad -- Petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender, when the petitioner was in New Zealand on a valid visa – Thereafter, High Court stayed his arrest for a period of 08 weeks -- On arrival from New Zealand, the passport of the petitioner was seized and later, he had appeared before the trial Court and was granted bail – Impounding of the passport is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India -- Petition allowed, seizure memo set aside.

(Para 8-15)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections u/s 498-A, 506, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Quashing of complaint/summoning order after Proclaimed offender order – Held, it would be in the interest of justice to see at the first instance whether any offence is made out against the petitioners as per allegations levelled against them in the complaint or not -- Because if the complaint fails, as a necessary corollary, all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom would automatically go.

(Para 1, 14, 15)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections u/s 498-A, 506, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Summoning order -- Proclaimed offender order – Quashing of -- Father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law – Role of – Specific allegations – Requirement of – No direct and specific allegations against the petitioners that they had given beatings to the complainant or demanded any dowry article or misappropriated the shtridhan – It has become a common practice to use the provisions of Section 498-A IPC as a weapon rather than shield by disgruntled wives – Casual reference of their names that husband of the complainant gave her beatings at the instance of petitioners – Held, case in hand is a sheer abuse of process of law -- Consequently, the complaint and all subsequent proceedings including the summoning order and order declaring proclamation offender, qua petitioners are quashed.

(Para 1,18,19)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 365, 366-A -- FIR u/s 365 – Challan u/s 363, 366-A – Run-away couple marriage – Proclaimed person -- Compromise quashing of FIR – Petitioner no.1/girl had gone out of her own free will and solemnised marriage with petitioner no.2 -- Offence u/s 363, 366A of IPC not made out against the petitioner no.2 – Petition for police protection was also filed by the petitioners -- FIR and all consequential proceedings including order declaring petitioner No. 2 as proclaimed person being abuse of process are liable to be quashed for securing the ends of justice -- In view of the settlement between the parties, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak -- Continuation of the criminal case will subject petitioner No. 2 to great oppression and injustice – FIR and consequential proceedings including order declaring petitioner no. 2 as proclaimed person are quashed.

(Para 11-16)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Rape – Quashing of FIR -- Proclaimed offender – Compromise between the parties -- Relationship was not based on a false promise of marriage – Affidavit submitted by the prosecutrix establish that the relationship was consensual with the prosecutrix, 28 years at that time -- Both were major and capable of taking a reasoned decision to enter into a physical relationship -- It is also not the case of the prosecutrix that the act complained off occurred only once or that she had been subjected to any kind of force -- It is not her case that the complainant has forcibly raped her --  FIR would further reflect that the marriage was not being solemnized on account of his parents not giving their consent – Held, it could not be said that he had made a false promise of marriage, only to entice her into the said physical relationship -- Very offence of rape would not be established -- FIR u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and all subsequent proceeding including the order declaring him to be a proclaimed offender are quashed since the continuation of the same would tantamount to abuse of the process of law.

(Para 5, 15-18)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141, 142 -- Proclaimed person – FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Quashing of -- Petitioners have shown a bona fide cause for non-appearance before the trial Court as service was not effected at the ordinary place of residence of the petitioners and they were not aware of the said fact and immediately, on coming to know about the said order, they compromised the case with the complainant and the complaint u/s 138 of the Act was withdrawn later on – Petition allowed, impugned order as well as FIR u/s 174-A IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, quashed.

(Para 7,8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 73, 87, 89, 390 – Cognizable offence – Non-bailable offence -- Arrest warrant – Power of Magistrate -- Under this Section the Magistrate can issue warrants of arrest against a person:-

(a) Who is an escaped convict

(b) Proclaimed offender

(c) Person accused of ‘non-bailable’ offence and is ‘evading arrest’.

Held that u/s 73 the Magistrate can issue warrants against a person who is evading arrest, only if such a person was required to appear before the court under some other order passed under some other provision; like u/s 87, 89 or 390 of Cr.P.C.; during the trial or at the time of or after taking cognizance -- Neither there is any necessity for a warrant of arrest for arresting an accused during investigation nor has the court been given any specific power in this regard by any specific provision of Cr.P.C.

(Para 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 73, 82, 173 – Cognizable offence -- Investigation report -- Arrest warrant – Proclaimed person/ offender -- Before filing report u/s 173 the police cannot get a warrant of arrest against a person, without any specific reason -- A person cannot be declared as a proclaimed person or offender in routine by following procedure u/s 82 of Cr.P.C.; only because despite having power to arrest an accused the police had not succeeded in arresting such a person or might not have chosen to arrest such a person.

(Para 11)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41 – Cognizable offence -- Power to arrest of police -- Provisions of Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. are quite clear that unless a cognizable offence is committed by a person in the presence of such police officer, police officer cannot arrest an accused only on the basis of his whims that he suspects the said person to have committed some offence -- If such person has committed some cognizable offence, which is punishable for imprisonment, then before arresting the person, the police officer has to satisfy himself that the arrest of such person is necessary; for the purposes delineated in the Section itself.

(Para 12)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 73, 82 – Proclaimed person/ offender -- Cognizable offence – Non-bailable offence -- Arrest warrant – Power of Magistrate -- Police use the power of the Magistrate to issue warrant of arrest against an accused, only as a tool to avoid its responsibility to carry out the investigation to the logical end; and only for the purpose of getting such an accused declared as proclaimed offender –        This methodology is normally adopted by the police just to get rid of the responsibility of putting a report before the Magistrate qua investigation – As a result, lots of persons are got declared as proclaimed offenders; and forgotten altogether by the police thereafter, Held;

--       Before the Magistrate/court has taken cognizance of any offence, the power of issuance of warrants of arrest under any provision of Cr.P.C., on an application of a police officer, cannot be invoked by the Magistrate as a routine matter.

--       Only for arresting a person; the police do not require any warrant as such. Hence, it would not lie in the mouth of the police to allege before the Magistrate, without there being any specific reasons or any barrier in their way, that the accused is evading arrest.

--       During investigation; even if there is some specific legal or factual obstacle or barrier, which makes the arrest without warrant impossible, and if the police intend to seek warrant of arrest from the Magistrate for such arrest, under any provision of the Cr.P.C., the police are required to specify the obstacle, which the warrant issued by the court would remove and because of which such obstacle or the barrier in way of the police; the accused was succeeding in evading his arrest.

--       Unless, there is any specific obstacle; because of which the police were not able to arrest; and which could not be removed by the police on their own and without the aid of the warrant of the court, the issuance of warrant of arrest by the Magistrate, only on assertion of the police that the accused was evading arrest, would be only a routine exercise, and would be only for the aid of the investigating officer, which could not be done by the Magistrate.

(Para 14)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 73 – Proclaimed person/ offender -- Cognizable offence – Non-bailable offence -- Arrest warrant – Power of Magistrate -- Application seeking issuance of warrant against the petitioner, is silent qua any reason -- Not only this, no reason, whatsoever, has been spelt out in the application, even qua the requirements of arrest as mentioned in Section 41 Cr.P.C, to justify arrest of the petitioner, except to say that the petitioner is evading arrest -- Magistrate has issued the warrant only to enlarge the effort of the police qua its investigation and that there is no stay of arrest -- Although the Magistrate may not be required to record any detailed reasons, however none of these reasons given is germane to the provisions under which the Magistrate is required to exercise his powers to issue warrants of arrest -- Impugned warrants of arrest and consequent orders impugned are quashed.

(Para 15-17)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed offender -- Order challenged after 4 years -- There may not be any reason to allow, however keeping in view the fact that the matter actually arises out of proceedings u/s 138 of the N.I. Act and petitioner undertakes to continue appearing before the trial Court on each and every date and also and a mother of two minor children (less than 10 years of age), impugned order set aside, upon the petitioner furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(Para 1)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed offender / person – F.I.R. u/s 174-A of IPC – Quashing of -- Petitioner has undergone substantive sentence in the proceedings u/s 138 of the N. I. Act -- Petitioner made the payment to the complainant who entered into a compromise with the petitioner after his claim was satisfied, sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by him – Both F.I.R.s registered u/s 174-A IPC are hereby quashed along with all the subsequent proceedings, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority.

(Para 9-10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR-- Non-appearance of the petitioner before Ld. Trial Court is justified for the reason that he was not served at the given address -- After passing of the order, the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail -- Matter compromised, complainant has withdrawn the complaint u/s 138 of the NIA Act -- Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC would amount to abuse of process of law – Order declaring proclaimed person and subsequent FIR quashed.

 (Para 1, 7,8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR-- Petitioner could not appear before the trial Court as he was stated to have not been served at the address, where he was residing -- After the passing of the impugned order declaring him as a proclaimed person, he had surrendered before the trial Court and was ordered to be released on bail -- In such circumstances, especially, when the petitioner has duly surrendered before the trial Court, continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of the process of Court.

(Para 5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 438, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Cheque bounce case – Proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. – FIR u/s 174-A – Quashing of – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court -- Held, looking to the nature of the prosecution against the petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Act, it would make no difference if he allowed a chance to participate in the prosecution against him, without finding any fault with the trial Court's order -- Petitioner will have to furnish bail bonds with the trial Court on his appearance before the trial Court and shall attend the trial with promptitude for its disposal in accordance with law – In that view of the matter, proclamation order and consequent FIR u/s 174-A of IPC are quashed under the inherent powers of High Court.

(Para 3,4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Proclaimed offender in cheque bounce case – Anticipatory bail -- Point for determination is whether the petitioner has been rightly declared proclaimed offender -- Otherwise also, the offence u/s 138 of the Act is bailable in nature -- Petitioner has already given an undertaking that he would submit to the process of law and would furnish the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court – Direction given to the petitioner to appear before trial court and furnish bail bond has been complied with – Interim order is made absolute.

(Para 6-8)