IMPORTANT POINT
The validity of the proclamation of a person as a proclaimed offender and the jurisdiction to register an FIR for specific offences under the IPC were central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender in a case titled Nisha versus Rajinder Gazta for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC)-III, Shimla. The police arrested him on 6.6.2022 at 8.00 PM, He was produced before the Court. The Court remanded him to custody till 7.6.2022 and advised the registration of FIR for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 174-A of IPC. The police registered the FIR No. 24 of 2022.

2. The petitioner filed the present petition for quashing the FIR. It was asserted that the petitioner never received any notice/summon from the Court of JMFC-III, Shimla. As per the order dated 29.8.2019, the notice was not received back. The bailable warrants were issued returnable for 19.4.2019. Non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued to secure the presence of the petitioner returnable for 18.2.2020. The bailable warrants were also not served upon the petitioner. The petitioner and the complainant have entered into a compromise. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed.

3. A status report was filed by the State reproducing the contents of the FIR. It was asserted that the police conducted the investigation and seized the record regarding the declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed offender. The challan was prepared and presented before learned JMFC, Chopal and is pending disposal.

4. I have heard Mr. Ashwani Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1-State.

5. Mr. Ashwani Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The Court had issued the proclamation care of Negi Building, Damrog Road, Solan which is not the address of the petitioner. The proper procedure for declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender was not adopted. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and FIR be quashed.

6. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No.1-State submitted that the petitioner failed to appear before the Court and he was declared a proclaimed offender. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. The FIR was rightly registered. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. The principles of exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 765 : (2023) 7 SCC 711 wherein it was observed at page 716:-

17. The principles to be borne in mind with regard to the quashing of a charge/proceedings either in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC or Section 482 CrPC or together, as the case may be, has engaged the attention of this Court many a time. Reference to each and every precedent is unnecessary. However, we may profitably refer to only one decision of this Court where upon a survey of almost all the precedents on the point, the principles have been summarised by this Court succinctly. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986], this Court laid down the following guiding principles : (SCC pp. 482-84, para 27)

“27. …27.1. Though there are no limits to the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations a