Point of Law: Use of the expression ‘after making such inquiry as it thinks fit’ implies that at the time of pronouncing a person as ‘proclaimed person ’ or ‘proclaimed offender ’, the concerned Court has to satisfy itself that the steps indicated in Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. are scrupulously followed.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 08.07.2020 passed by the learned Duty M.M. (South-East District), Saket Courts, New Delhi as well as the orders dated 03.08.2021 and 06.08.2021 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate06 (South-East District), Saket Courts, New Delhi in case arising out of FIR No. 601/2019 registered under Sections 376/506/406/323/313/34 IPC at Police Station Kalkaji, New Delhi, whereby the petitioner has been declared an Absconder

2. Brief facts, necessary for deciding the present petition, are that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered on 04.12.2019. During the pendency of investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case obtained NBWs against the petitioner on 09.01.2020. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer also moved an application dated 06.02.2020 before the concerned Court seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. In the application, it was stated that search was made for the petitioner, however, he was not found available at any address. It was also mentioned that an application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.01.2020 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. On the aforesaid application, vide order dated 10.02.2020, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was directed to be issued against the petitioner for 24.03.2020. On 08.07.2020, the learned Duty Metropolitan Magistrate recorded the statement of the process server and on the same date, i.e., 08.07.2020, the petitioner was declared an Absconder. Later, an application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking recall/setting aside of the order dated 08.07.2020 was also dismissed on 03.08.2021. Vide order dated 06.08.2021, a typographical error in the order dated 03.08.2021 was corrected.

3. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has assailed the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 82 Cr.P.C. by contending that there was complete non-application of mind while declaring the petitioner an Absconder. It is submitted that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against the petitioner on 10.02.2020 for 24.03.2020, however, a nationwide lockdown came to be imposed on 24.03.2020 on account of the Covid-19 pandemic and as such, the petitioner, who was required to appear before the Court on 24.03.2020, could not appear on the said date. It is also submitted that in between the petitioner had preferred an application seeking anticipatory bail in which he was directed to join investigation, however, he could not join the same as he was prescribed 15-day home stay isolation by the concerned Doctor from Community Health Centre, Ghosi Distt., Mau (U.P.). It is stated that a copy of the medical slip issued by the said Doctor was also sent on behalf of the petitioner to the Investigating Officer.

It is next contended that the non-application of mind by the Metropolitan Magistrate is also apparent from the fact that while the present case pertains to the jurisdiction of Police Station Kalkaji, the impugned order mentions the name of Police Station as Amar Colony.

4. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the petitioner could not have been declared an Absconder; in terms of Section 82(4) Cr.P.C., he could have been pronounced as a ‘proclaimed person’, but that too only after making of an inquiry in this regard. It is submitted that even an inquiry under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. would require application of mind. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in Sunil Tyagi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another reported as 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3479 and Sanjay Bhandari v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10203.

5. Mr. Hirein Sharma, learned APP for the State, duly assisted by Ms. Aishwarya Rao, learned counsel on the panel of DHCLS