Absconding and the Law: When Does a Proclaimed Offender Get Relief?


Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2025 INSC 21. [PDF]

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India recently addressed significant legal questions surrounding the status of a "proclaimed offender" and the implications for proceedings under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case, Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana, clarifies the interplay between Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), which deals with proclamations for absconding persons, and Section 174A of the IPC, which penalizes non-appearance in response to such proclamations.

This judgment explores whether a person's "proclaimed offender" status can continue if they are later acquitted of the original offense that led to the proclamation. It also examines whether a prosecution under Section 174A of the IPC can proceed independently of the validity or subsistence of the original proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. The court’s analysis offers important insights into the balance between compelling an accused’s appearance and ensuring that legal proceedings are not unduly prolonged when the underlying cause for that compulsion has been resolved.

The Supreme Court's decision provides much-needed clarity on these legal issues, emphasizing that while Section 174A is a stand-alone offense, the courts have the discretion to close proceedings under that section if the accused is acquitted of the original charge and the circumstances warrant such action. This ruling impacts the status of proclaimed offenders, the interpretation of Section 174A of the IPC, and the overall approach to criminal justice in India.

Case Summary

  1. Contractual Dispute: Daljit Singh's business was awarded a contract for the ‘8-Laning’ of a National Highway (NH-1) by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). He entered into an agreement with M/s Bhola Singh Jaiprakash Construction Ltd. for stone crushing. Disputes arose over specifications and payment, leading to the issuance of cheques as security.

  2. Cheque Issues and Complaint: A cheque issued as payment was encashed, and later, a cheque from the bank guarantee account was also encashed, despite the previous payment. A complaint case was filed related to one of the security cheques.

  3. Proclaimed Offender Status: Due to non-appearance after summons, Daljit Singh was declared a "proclaimed offender" under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. This was followed by an FIR under Section 174A of the IPC for not responding to the proclamation.

  4. Acquittal in the Main Case: Subsequent to the filing of the special leave petition, Daljit Singh was acquitted in the main case related to the cheque dispute, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

  5. Supreme Court Intervention: The Supreme Court addressed two core questions: Can the “proclaimed offender” status subsist if the accused is acquitted during the trial, and is the subsistence of a proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. necessary to proceed against an accused under Section 174A of the IPC.

  6. Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court judgment, closed all criminal proceedings against Daljit Singh (including the FIR under Section 174A), and nullified his status as a "proclaimed person".

Study guide

  1. Section 82 of Cr.P.C.: This section allows a court to issue a proclamation requiring a person to appear if it believes the person has absconded or is hiding to evade the execution of a warrant. The primary purpose of Section 82 is to secure the presence of the accused before the court. The proclamation must be published in a conspicuous place of the person's residence, affixed to their house or another conspicuous place in their village/town, and displayed at the courthouse. It can also be published in a local newspaper. A notice under Section 41, Cr.P.C., should be issued before a notice is issued under Section 82.
  2. Section 174A of IPC: This section penalizes the non-appearance of a person at the specified time and place in a proclamation issued under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. It is a substantive offense that can be prosecuted independently of the status of the original proclamation. The penalty is imprisonment of up to three years, or a fine, or both. If they are declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C, the imprisonment can extend to seven years along with a fine.
  3. Proclaimed Offender: A proclaimed offender is someone declared by the court after failing to appear following a proclamation under Section 82(4) of the Cr.P.C. The court must make an inquiry before declaring someone a proclaimed offender.
  4. Absconding: The term "absconding" means to depart secretly or suddenly, especially to avoid arrest, prosecution, or service of process. Hiding, even at home, to evade the legal process is considered absconding. However, absconding is not conclusive evidence of guilt. An innocent person may try to evade arrest out of fear or panic.
  5. Interplay between Section 82 Cr.P.C. and Section 174A IPC: Section 174A IPC proceedings are initiated based on the original proclamation issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. However, the offense under Section 174A is committed when the person fails to appear as directed by the proclamation and therefore, the prosecution for failing to appear remains valid even if, at a later point, the original proclamation is cancelled.
  6. Acquittal in the Main Case: Although Section 174A is a stand-alone offense, the court may consider closing proceedings under Section 174A if the accused is acquitted in the underlying offense. This is especially true if the reason for needing the accused's presence is no longer relevant.

Rationale

  1. Purpose of Section 82 Cr.P.C: The court emphasized that the purpose of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is to secure the presence of the accused, not to punish or benefit third parties. Once the accused appears, the proclamation and any associated attachments must be withdrawn.
  2. Section 174A as a Stand-alone Offense: The court clarified that Section 174A of the IPC is an independent, substantive offense. The offense under 174A is triggered at the moment a person fails to appear as directed by the proclamation.
  3. Evidentiary Value of Absconding: The court reiterated that absconding is a weak piece of evidence and not conclusive proof of guilt. It could be due to fear or to evade arrest, and needs to be considered with other evidence.
  4. Pragmatic Approach: The court adopted a pragmatic approach, acknowledging that when the purpose of securing an accused's presence is no longer valid due to their acquittal, there is no rationale to continue Section 174A proceedings.
  5. Discretion of the Court: The court noted that if the accused is acquitted in the underlying offense, the court trying the 174A IPC case may consider closing proceedings, if requested and if the circumstances warrant.
  6. Specific Facts of the case: The Supreme Court considered the fact that the original offense dated back to 2010, the money in dispute had been paid, and the appellant was acquitted in the main case. These circumstances contributed to the decision to close all proceedings.

FAQ

Q.1. What is a "proclaimed offender" under Indian law?

Answer: A "proclaimed offender" is a person who has been declared an offender by a court for failing to appear before it after a proclamation has been issued under Section 82(4) of the Cr.P.C. This declaration is made after the court has reason to believe that the person is absconding or hiding to evade a warrant.

Q.2. What is the main purpose of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.?

Answer: The main purpose of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is to compel the appearance of an accused person before the court. It provides a mechanism to ensure that individuals who are required to attend court do not evade the legal process.

Q.3. What does Section 174A of the IPC penalize?

Answer: Section 174A of the IPC penalizes the non-appearance of a person at the specified time and place in a proclamation issued under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. It is a penal provision designed to deter individuals from defying court orders to appear.

Q.4. Can a prosecution under Section 174A of the IPC continue if the proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is no longer in effect?

Answer: Yes, the prosecution under Section 174A of the IPC can continue even if the proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is no longer in effect. The non-appearance itself constitutes the offense under Section 174A, making it a stand-alone offense.

Q.5. Does being an 'absconder' automatically imply guilt?

Answer: No, absconding does not automatically imply guilt. While absconding can be considered as a relevant piece of evidence, it is a weak link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. The court acknowledged that even an innocent person might try to avoid arrest or evade the legal process, especially if they fear being falsely implicated.

Q.6. What was the outcome of the main case against Daljit Singh under the Negotiable Instruments Act?

Answer: Daljit Singh was acquitted in the main case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This acquittal was a significant factor in the Supreme Court's decision to quash all proceedings, including those under Section 174A of the IPC.

Q.7. What did the Supreme Court decide about Daljit Singh's status as a proclaimed offender?

Answer: The Supreme Court quashed Daljit Singh's status as a proclaimed offender and closed all criminal proceedings against him. This decision was based on his acquittal in the main case, the resolution of the dispute, and the court’s emphasis on preventing the perpetuation of legal processes when the underlying issue had been resolved.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana provides a crucial interpretation of the relationship between Sections 82 of the Cr.P.C. and 174A of the IPC. It clarifies that while Section 174A is a stand-alone offense, courts have the discretion to close these proceedings if the accused is acquitted in the main case and the circumstances justify such closure. This ruling balances the need to ensure the appearance of the accused with the need to avoid unnecessary legal proceedings when the core issue has been resolved. The judgment underscores that the legal process should be driven by a pragmatic approach aimed at achieving justice rather than simply adhering to procedure.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Navigating Partnership Disputes in Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention, Tasking Arbitral Tribunal to Determine Privity Amidst Partner Succession and a Substitute Presiding Arbitrator Appointment

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...
Read more

Trademark Victory for "STREAX": Court Protects Established Brand Against Infringement

A critical analysis of the trademark infringement case, Hygienic Research Institute Private Limited v. Chandan and Shah Trading LLP , 2025:BHC-OS:3609 , reveals key aspects of trademark law and judicial reasoning. The case revolved around the plaintiff's ("Hygienic Research Institute") registered trademark "STREAX" and the defendant's ("Chandan and Shah Trading LLP") use of the mark "STREAK Street". Key points of analysis : Trademark and Goodwill: The plaintiff asserted proprietary rights in its registered trademark "STREAX," emphasizing its extensive use since 2002 and 44 registrations for "STREAX" and its variants. Significant sales turnover, with ₹501 Crores in 2023-24, and advertising expenses of ₹50 Crores, demonstrated the brand's market presence. Infringement and Passing Off: The plaintiff contended that the defendant's mark, "STREAK Street," was deceptively similar to the registered tradem...
Read more