The bar created by section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. does not apply to the offence u/s 174-A I.P.C. and a private person is competent to lodge a complaint or even an F.I.R. under Section 174-A I.P.C.

Vijay Lakshmi, J.

By means of the instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has prayed to quash the charge sheet No. 67 of 2015 dated 19.01.2015 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.395/2015, arising out of Case Crime No.953 of 2014, under Section 174-A I.P.C., P.S. New Agra, District Agra, pending before Special C.J.M., Agra.

2. Heard arguments of Shri Ankit Agarwal Advocate, holding brief of Shri Dharmendra Singhal on behalf of the applicant, learned AGA and learned counsel for O.P. No. 2. Perused the record.

3. The facts of the present case, as reflected from a perusal of the certified copies of the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the order of learned Magistrate dated 26.9.2014 passed on that application, (copies whereof have been filed by the applicant and also by O.P. No. 2 by means of supplementary affidavits), are that the applicant, who is an accused in Case Crime No. 606 of 2007, u/s 420, 406, 467, 468 and 447 I.P.C., was acquitted by the trial court i.e. Special C.J.M., Agra. Against the order of acquittal, the State filed Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2013 which was decided by the court of Additional sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Agra, and the lower appellate court, on finding the applicant guilty of committing embezzlement of public money, reverted the judgment of acquittal, passed by the Magistrate and convicted the accused/applicant accordingly. However, the lower appellate court, instead of itself awarding the sentence to the accused/ appellant, directed him to appear personally before the court of Special C.J.M. i.e. the trial court, on 21.4.2014 for the purpose of hearing on the question of sentence. The applicant did not appear before the trial court. Instead, he challenged the order of lower appellate court before this court by means of Criminal Revision No. 1246 of 2014 on the ground that the appellate court, while reverting the finding of acquittal, was itself empowered to award sentence to the accused and there was no need to direct the accused to appear before the trial court for hearing on the question of sentence.

4. This Court vide order dated 30.4.2014, allowed the aforesaid revision, but at the same time, it directed the applicant/ revisionist to appear before the lower appellate court i.e. the court of Additional Sessions Judge on 12.5.2014 for hearing on sentence. The applicant did not appear before the lower appellate court on the date fixed and moved a time extension application. This court, vide order dated 20.5.2014, granted him a further time of fifteen days and no more, to surrender before the lower appellate court. The applicant once again did not comply the order and moved second time extension application on 1.9.2014, which was rejected by this court vide order dated 10.9.2014, in wake of its previous order. As a result, coercive measures were taken against the applicant and ultimately due to his continuous abscondance, he was declared a proclaimed offender and a proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against him, which was affixed on his residential house.

5. Despite all these coercive measures, when the applicant did not appear before the court, the complainant/ respondent no. 2 tried to lodge a report against him u/s 174-A I.P.C., but it was not registered by the police on the ground that there was no order of the court concerned. Thereafter the complainant moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court of C.J.M., Agra, with prayer to direct the police to register the case u/s 174-A I.P.C. against the applicant as he had failed to appear in response to a proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C.

6. The learned Magistrate allowed the application and directed the police to register and investigate the matter. The police investigated the case and after investigation submitted charge sheet against the applicant on which the Magistrate took cognizance.

7. The legality of the aforesaid charge sheet and the order of cognizance has been questioned before th