Back
S.K.AGARWAL
SUNIL KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI – Respondent
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The court examined the issuance of process under Sections 82 and 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) concerning a petitioner accused of offenses under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (!) .
It was observed that the court did not record any satisfaction that warrants against the petitioner could not be served or that he was concealing himself, despite the petitioner’s address being available in the FIR (!) (!) .
No efforts were made to serve the petitioner at the address provided in the FIR, nor was there evidence of attempts to serve through the Ministry of External Affairs at Muscat (!) (!) .
The orders for proclamation and declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender appeared to have been passed without proper application of mind and without following the procedural requirements, such as the minimum period of 30 days between publication and the date of appearance (!) (!) (!) .
The orders issued under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. did not comply with the statutory provisions, especially regarding the manner of publication and the recording of reasons for belief that the person was absconding or concealing himself (!) (!) .
The court noted that the proclamation was issued prematurely, and the subsequent declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed offender was not supported by proper satisfaction or evidence, thus rendering the orders unlawful (!) (!) .
On these grounds, the court set aside the proclamation order and the declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed offender, emphasizing that the orders were passed in violation of legal requirements (!) .
The petitioner was directed to appear before the trial court on a specified date for further proceedings
( 1 ) BY this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Criminal Procedure Code.), petitioner is seeking quashing of the FIR No. 265/1996, p. S. Tilak Marg, under Section 498-A/406indian Penal Code and consequent proceedings thereon and for quashing of the order dated 24/9/1996 issuing proclamation under Section 82 Criminal Procedure Code. , and the order dated 4/10/1996, declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender.
( 2 ) BRIEF facts necessary for disposal of this petition are; on 7/3/1996, Ms. Bina lodged a report alleging therein that she was married to the petitioner on 14/2/1994, who was employed as an electrician at Muscut in oman. After the marriage when her husband went abroad, she started living with family of the elder brother of her husband; her husband after going abroad did not write any letter to her nor sent any money, to meet the household expenses. One day, elder brother of her husband complained, to her father that in the marriage they were not given scooter, colour T. V. etc. She was told that the petitioner would be coming in-the month of April, 1996, to attend the marriage of his niece and that in december,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
