In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has clarified that no First Information Report (FIR) can be lodged under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a proclaimed offender before the lapse of 30 days from the issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The judgment was delivered by Single Judge Bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania on August 29, 2024, in the matter of Ravi Dev Singh alias Ravidev Yadav and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Application U/S 482 No. 7630 of 2024).
Background of the Case:
The applicants, Ravi Dev Singh alias Ravidev Yadav and another, approached the Allahabad High Court challenging the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC initiated against them. The FIR (No. 766/2023) was registered at Police Station PGI, District Lucknow, on the basis of a summoning order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Lucknow, on May 7, 2024. The applicants contended that the FIR and subsequent proceedings were legally unsustainable.
The applicants were represented by a team of lawyers, including Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, Aditya Kumar Pandey, Ayush Chaudhary, and Gaurav Vishwakarma. The opposite party, the State of Uttar Pradesh, was represented by the Additional Government Advocate (AGA).
Key Legal Issues:
The primary issue before the court was whether an FIR could be lodged under Section 174-A IPC for a proclaimed offender before the lapse of 30 days from the issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC. Section 174-A IPC deals with the punishment for failure to appear at a specified place and time as required by a proclamation published under Section 82 of the CrPC.
The applicants argued that the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC were unsustainable because they were initiated based on an FIR, contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 195 of the CrPC. This section prohibits the court from taking cognizance of any offense punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
Justice Lavania observed that the initiation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC based on an FIR was contrary to the legal provisions. The court referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17560 of 2023 (Sumit and Another vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others), which held that such proceedings could only be initiated on the basis of a written complaint by the court, not on a police report.
Quoting the judgment, Justice Lavania noted:
“Section 195 CrPC clearly prohibits the court from taking cognizance of offenses punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned. This includes offenses under Section 174-A IPC.”
The court emphasized that the legislative intent behind Section 195 CrPC was to protect the personal liberty of individuals, ensuring that they are not harassed by the police through unnecessary FIRs for offenses like Section 174-A IPC. The court stated:
“Permitting the lodging of an FIR under Section 174-A IPC before the lapse of 30 days from the issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC would amount to a travesty of justice and a violation of the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The court further held that the FIR against the applicants was unsustainable and quashed the proceedings in Case No. 44489/2024 titled State vs. Ravidev Yadav and another pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.
Case Details:
– Case Title: Ravi Dev Singh @ Ravidev Yadav and Another vs. State of U.P. Through Addl. Chief Secretary / Principal Secretary Home, Lucknow
– Case Number: Application U/S 482 No. 7630 of 2024
– Bench: Hon’ble Justice Saurabh Lavania
– Applicants: Ravi Dev Singh @ Ravidev Yadav and Another
– Opposite Party: The State of Uttar Pradesh, represented through the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary Home, Lucknow
– Counsel for Applicants: Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, Aditya Kumar Pandey, Ayush Chaudhary, Gaurav Vishwakarma
– Counsel for Opposite Party: Additional Government Advocate (AGA)
– Relevant Sections: Section 174-A IPC, Section 82 CrPC, Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC
