The Hon’ble Delhi High Court opined that a person can be directed to be declared as a proclaimed offender under Sub- section (4) of Section 82 Cr.PC only if he is accused of offence punishable under section 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 IPC.
In the present case, offences invoked are Section 420/120B/34 IPC, which have not been specified under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C, hence to the extent order declared Petitioner as PO was to be set aside.
A person who is accused of offences other than the ones enumerated in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. and qua whom a proclamation has been published under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. would be a ‘Proclaimed Person’, therefore, the Petitioner’s status as a proclaimed person would not be affected.
Brief Facts:
The present petition has been preferred by Petitioner for setting aside of order vide which the petitioner was declared as ‘Proclaimed Offender’ (‘PO’) arising out of FIR under Sections 420/120B/34 IPC.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was argued that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was required to be executed at the official address of the Petitioner and not at the address of his village.
It was further contended that the Petitioner could not have been declared as PO under Section 82(4) of the Cr.P.C. as the same is confined to specific offences enumerated therein.
Contentions of the State:
It was contended that the contentions were never raised before any Court (Trial or Revision). It was submitted that since the Petitioner was absconding and the Non-Bailable Warrants could not be executed at the residential address of the Petitioner as per record, the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that since anticipatory bail was dismissed, Petitioner was aware of the proceedings and failed to join investigation. Since no other address was shared by Petitioner, the argument that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was required to be executed at official address was without any merit.
In relation to the status of PO, the Bench opined that a person can be directed to be declared as a proclaimed offender under Sub- section (4) of Section 82 Cr.PC only if he is accused of offence punishable under section 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 IPC.
In the present case, offences invoked are Section 420/120B/34 IPC, which have not been specified under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C, hence to the extent order declared Petitioner as PO was to be set aside.
A person who is accused of offences other than the ones enumerated in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. and qua whom a proclamation has been published under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. would be a ‘Proclaimed Person’, therefore, the Petitioner’s status as a proclaimed person would not be affected.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned reasoning, the Court accordingly disposed the petition.
Case Title: Mohd. Akhtar Gujjar v. State
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 780/2024
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr.C.M. Thapliyal, Mr. S.P. Paul, Ms.Kiran Latal Pal and Ms. Kanchan Thapliyal
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Mr.Ajay Vikram Singh
Read More @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
