SC Rules Section 174A IPC is a stand-alone Offence, can continue Even After Proclamation Under Section 82 CrPC culminate

Post By 24law
January 3, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court, in its judgment in Daljit Singh vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (2025 INSC 21), clarified that Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is an independent and substantive offence that continues even if a proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is extinguished. The bench, comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, emphasized that while proceedings under Section 174A IPC must originate from a proclamation issued under Section 82 CrPC, they remain valid even after the proclamation ceases to exist.

Case Background

The appellant, Daljit Singh, was declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 CrPC by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhiwani, after failing to appear in response to summons related to a complaint. The proceedings stemmed from a contractual dispute regarding payments between the appellant’s firm and a complainant.

Following the proclamation, an FIR was registered under Section 174A IPC, and the appellant was arrested but released on bail. Subsequently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed his petition under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the proceedings. The Court stated that a proclaimed offender could not file such petitions without addressing the proclamation status before the trial court. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Issues Considered by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered two pivotal questions:

Whether the status of a proclaimed offender under Section 82 CrPC subsists after acquittal in the related trial.
Whether proceedings under Section 174A IPC can continue independently after the proclamation status is nullified.

Key Observations and Ruling

Section 174A IPC as a Stand-Alone Offence
The Court held that Section 174A IPC is a substantive offence that penalizes failure to appear in court as required by a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC. The Court clarified that once a person fails to appear within the specified time, the offence under Section 174A IPC is complete. Consequently, the proceedings for this offence are not contingent on the continued subsistence of the proclamation under Section 82 CrPC.

The bench observed: “The language of Section 174A IPC indicates that the offence is complete at the instance of non-appearance as required by the proclamation. Hence, the prosecution under Section 174A IPC can proceed even if the proclamation under Section 82 CrPC is no longer in effect.”
Proclamation as a Precondition but Not a Continuation Requirement
The Court explained that while a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC is necessary to initiate proceedings under Section 174A IPC, the continuation of such proceedings does not depend on the proclamation's subsistence.
Impact of Acquittal in the Original Offence
Addressing the appellant's acquittal in the original offence, the Court noted that the acquittal meant no further proceedings were required for the primary offence. However, the proceedings under Section 174A IPC, being independent, could have continued unless otherwise resolved.
Case-Specific Relief
In the present case, the Court took note of the facts:
- The original offence pertained to a contractual dispute from 2010, and the financial obligations had been settled amicably.
- The appellant had been acquitted in the main trial, and his presence was no longer required in connection with the original offence.

The court ruled : “The appeal is allowed. All criminal proceedings, inclusive of the FIR under Section 174A IPC, shall stand closed. The appellant’s status as a ‘proclaimed person’ is quashed.”