In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol clarified the independent applicability of Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which penalizes non-appearance in response to a proclamation. The Court held that even if the underlying case is quashed or resolved, non-appearance during the effective period of a proclamation can still attract penal consequences under Section 174A IPC.
Case Background
The case, Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr., arose from a dispute involving an 8-laning contract for NH-1, awarded by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to the appellant’s business. Following allegations of contractual non-compliance, the NHAI terminated the agreement, leading to a series of disputes over cheques provided as security.
A complaint filed in 2010 alleged misuse of these cheques, resulting in the appellant being declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in 2016. Despite subsequent developments, including his acquittal in the primary case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, proceedings under Section 174A IPC for non-appearance continued, culminating in this appeal.
Important Legal Issues
The Supreme Court examined two critical questions:
1. Can the accused be penalized under Section 174A IPC if the underlying case is quashed or resolved?
2. Does Section 174A IPC operate independently of the continued validity of a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.?
Key Observations by the Court
Justice Sanjay Karol emphasized the legislative intent behind Section 174A IPC and its relationship with Section 82 Cr.P.C.:
– On Independence of Section 174A IPC: The Court ruled that proceedings under Section 174A IPC are not contingent on the continued subsistence of the proclamation. “Non-appearance in response to a proclamation constitutes a stand-alone offense, enforceable even if the proclamation ceases to exist due to subsequent developments,” the bench observed.
– Purpose of Proclamation: The Court clarified that a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is a procedural tool to ensure the presence of the accused. However, failure to comply with the proclamation’s requirements during its effective period constitutes an offense under Section 174A IPC.
– On Acquittal and Proclamation: The bench stated, “While acquittal in the main case nullifies the need for securing the accused’s presence, it does not absolve prior non-compliance with the proclamation.”
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed Daljit Singh’s challenge to the FIR under Section 174A IPC, affirming its independent applicability. However, considering the appellant’s acquittal in the primary case and the settlement of monetary disputes, the Court quashed all criminal proceedings against him, including his status as a proclaimed offender.
The judgment highlighted, “Section 174A IPC is a substantive, independent offense that remains enforceable despite subsequent developments in the underlying case.”
Case Details
– Case Name: Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.
– Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
– Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 4359 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12606/2023)
