Roop Sharma v. State Of Haryana And Another
!"#" $% &'& ( &&&& )(( ( &&&&&( ( %
*+ & ( &(&,+&
&(&,+
- .+/
'
(
- .
"
"
-
,
!-*' 0
(1
2 &
+ 01 0 !#
% 3
+ !#
% 4
4
5%-
4
67 *18
4 .
,
4
9#
-&** 1'
'
+
+ ( ,
%
9# 4;
01"
("$23
5- -
! 1+ )
1 (
9#
( $"
96:
6$1 ; -&**
+ 1 ( (
< =
5- -&**1'
+* : (
!
<
.
* 3
# .
,
+
.
%
.
# #
'
.
.
=
#
!-*' 0
(1
()
,
:
4;
01"
("$23
5.#6<5
#
#
+ !% 7
* 7.3 Now, what happens if the status under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is nullified i.e., the person subjected to such proclamation, by virtue of subsequent developments is no longer required to be presented before a Court of law. Then, can the prosecution still proceed against such a person for having not appeared before a Court during the time that the process was in effect. The answer is in the affirmative. We say so for the following reasons:'
(i) The language of Section 174A, IPC says "whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by proclamation...". This implies that the very instance at which a person is directed to appear, and he does not do so, this Section comes into play; (ii) What further flows from the language employed is that the instance of non'appearance becomes an infraction of the Section, and therefore, prosecution therefor would be independent of Section 82, Cr.P.C. being in effect;
(iii) So, while proceedings under Section 174A IPC cannot be initiated independent of Section 82, Cr.P.C., i.e., can only be started post the issuance of proclamation, they can continue if the said proclamation is no longer in effect.
(iv) We find that the Delhi High Court has taken this view, i.e., that Section 174A, IPC is a stand'alone offence in Mukesh Bhatia v.
State (NCT of Delhi)19; Divya Verma v. State20; Sameena & Anr. v. State GNCT of Delhi & Anr.21 For the reasons afore' stated, we agree with the findings made in these judgments/orders. At the same time, it stands clarified that we have not commented on the merits of the cases. (v) Granted that the offence prescribed in Section 174A IPC is indeed stand'alone, given that it arises out of an original offence in connection with which proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is initiated and in the said offence the accused stands, subsequently, acquitted, it would be permissible in law for the Court seized of the trial under such offence, to take note of such a development and treat the same as a ground to
draw the proceedings to a close, should such a prayer be made and the circumstances of the case so warrant.
8. In conclusion, we hold that Section 174A IPC is an independent, substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation under Section 82, Cr.P.C. is extinguished. It is a stand'alone offence. That being the position of 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1023 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2619 Crl. M.C No, 1470 of 2021, Dated 17th May, 2022 law, let us now turn to the present facts. As we have already noted supra, the Appellant stands acquitted of the main offence."
,
= -
( $"
96:
6$1 ;.#6<5
< =
5.#6<5 /& ) %
"
,
( & .
#
'
(
- .
"
>
?
5
% -
.&(&,+/ &'& renu
,3
#<
="$2>5
# $ 8% #>
,3
< 5
;0 % #>