The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated in a routine manner and pre-requisites of Section 82 Cr.P.C. need to be complied with first before initiating such proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application is accordingly disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 1538/2022 & CRL.M.A. 6656/2022 (STAY)

1. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing/setting aside of the order dated15.03.2022 passed by Ld.M.M., Dwarka Courts, Delhi in CR. Case No.3800/2021 titled as 'State vs. Vivek Chauhan', thereby dismissing the exemption application filed on behalf of the petitioner and directing issue of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner.

2. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State appears on advance notice served upon the State and accepts notice.

3. I intend to dispose of the petition at this stage itself, considering the fact that a glaring irregularity appears to have been committed by Ld.M.M. by directing initiation of proceedings under Section 82 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).

3. As per the case of the petitioner, cognizance of the offence was taken on 28.09.2021 and summons were issued to the accused/petitioner returnable for 11.01.2022. In compliance of the aforesaid summons, petitioner duly appeared before the court on 11.01.2022 and the matter was listed for 15.03.2022. However, on 15.03.2022, the exemption application was filed on behalf of the petitioner since he had proceeded out of India and made a request that he shall be returning in the last week of May, 2022.

However, the learned trial court initiated the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. after rejecting the exemption application on the ground that the application is silent as to the purpose and place, wherein the petitioner/accused had proceeded.

4. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by learned trial court is in complete disregard of the provisions of law, since the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were directed to be initiated merely on non-appearance on 15.03.2022 after disallowing the application for exemption from appearance.

Reliance has been further placed upon the observations in 'Court on its Motion vs. Central Bureau of Investigation' 2004 (72) DRJ 629 and Mani Shandly and Ors. vs. The State and Ors.' 2008 (102) DRJ 578.

5. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner, order dated 15.03.2022 passed by learned Trial Court may be reproduced:-

"Cr.Case 3800/21 State vs Vivek Chauhan FIR No. 205116 PS: Janakpuri

15.03.2022

Present:- Ms. Rajesh Kumari, Ld. APP for the State. Ld. Counsel for accused.

Exemption application has been filed on behalf of the accused on the ground that he has gone out of India and shall return in the last week of May 2022. The application is silent about for what purpose and the place where he has gone. It seems that accused is deliberately evading process of the court.

Accordingly, let process u/s 82 Cr. PC be issued against the accused through DCP concerned on his last known address with directions to execute the same at least 30 days before the date given. The process server is also directed to ensure the execution of the aforesaid process by :-

1. Affixation on the main gate of the house of the accused.

2. The photographs regarding the affixation of the process in the aforesaid manner be also filed along with the report.

3. By public announcement in the area.

4. To record the statement of two respectable members of the society regarding the execution of the process in the aforesaid manner.

IO is also directed to ensure the publication of the process in the leading National English/Hindi/ Vernacular languages newspaper having circulation in the area of the residence of the accused.

Be put up for report on 10.06.2022.

(Sd/-)

MM-II/DWARKA/DELHI

15.03.2022"

6. Section 82 of Cr.P.C. may also be beneficially quoted:

"82. Proclamation for person absconding.-(1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that su