IMPORTANT POINT
Subsistence of proclamation after acquittal – Section 174A IPC is an independent, substantive offence that can continue even if proclamation under Section 82, Cr.P.C. is extinguished – It is a stand-alone offence.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Karol, J.)

1. The questions arising in this appeal that assails the judgment and order dated 2nd June, 2023 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Case No.CRM-M-5784 of 2023 (O&M), whereby under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973¹[Hereinafter, “Cr.P.C.”], the Court refused to quash Complaint Case No.151 of 2010 dated 8th June, 2010; summoning order dated 17th August, 2010; and order dated 28th November, 2016 declaring the appellant a proclaimed offender passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhiwani; are that whether the proclaimed offender status, under the provisions of the Cr.P.C., of an accused can subsist if such accused stands acquitted during trial in connection to the very same offence; and whether the subsistence of the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is necessary for the authorities to proceed against an accused against whom such a proclamation stands issued, under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860²[Hereinafter, “IPC”].

2. The facts which gave rise to the question as above, in brief, are:

2.1 The Appellant ran a business concern which was awarded a contract for ‘8-Laning’ of a National Highway (NH-1) within Delhi, by the National Highways Authority of India³[Hereafter, “NHAI”].

2.2 In furtherance of such a contract, Respondent No. 2⁴[Hereinafter referred to as the complainant] approached a company by the name of M/s Bhola Singh Jaiprakash Construction Ltd. for stone crushing. On mutually agreed specifications, it is also part of the agreement that the same would be supplied to the construction site. In connection thereto, cheques by way of security, were also issued. The work under the agreement was also executed but allegedly did not meet the specifications, hence resulting in a dispute.

2.3 The NHAI terminated the Appellant’s contract on 13th January, 2009 and accordingly cashed the bank guarantee furnished. It is alleged that the cheques issued by way of security to Respondent No. 2 were misplaced and the new cheque worth Rs.10 Lacs given as the payment was duly encashed on 16th October, 2009.⁵[Cheque No. 72107, Bank of Baroda]. Subsequently on 30th November, 2009 cheque issued from the bank guarantee account as security was also encashed despite having encashed the subsequent cheque issued as final payment.

2.4 The Complaint case, in connection with the unclaimed cheque, was filed on 8th June, 2010, in which summons were issued on 17th August, 2010. Thereafter, the case was allegedly transferred out of Bhiwani, and eventually back to its jurisdictional Court. Notice upon non-appearance of the Appellant, direction to issue written proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. with a further direction to the Appellant to appear before the Court on 28th November, 2016 was issued on 15th October, 2016. On 28th November, 2016, the order declaring the Appellant and another director of the company as proclaimed offenders, was issued⁶[Hereafter referred to as the ‘PO Order’]. All such proceedings and orders are subject matter of challenge in this Appeal.

2.5 This other Director, RP Singh preferred quashing petitions before the High Court which came to be eventually dismissed.

2.6 The Appellant was arrested under the PO Order on 19th December, 2022 and released on bail the same day, by the competent Court. He was raided by the police again, in connection with an FIR⁷[FIR No. 200 dated 17th December 2023 u/s 174A, IPC] of similar nature.

2.7 The Quashing Petition in which the impugned order came to be passed was filed on 31st January, 2023. The same was dismissed on 2nd June, 2023 by the impugned order and judgment.

3. The impugned order dismissed the Appellant's petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., with reference to an earlier judgment of the Court wherein it had been held that if a person had been declared a proclaimed offender, such a petition by him would not be maintainable. It was observed that the validity of such a proclamation is also to be raised before