JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Bhatia, J.

1. Heard Sri Siddhartha Sinha, learned Counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S.N. Tilhari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 14.06.2022 issued in exercise of powers under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Cr.P.C."). Although other prayers have been made in the application, however, the Counsel for the applicant confines his submission to the challenge to the order dated 14.06.2022 alone.

3. The facts in brief are that an FIR No.82 of 2022, under Sections 120B, 384, 389, 405, 420, 465, 471, 504 IPC read with Section 7/13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Kaiserbagh, District Lucknow was registered against the applicant. It is also on record that subsequently, Sections 467 and 468 IPC were added.

4. It is argued by the Counsel for the applicant that on 09.05.2022, a non-bailable warrant was issued by the court concerned at the instance of the investigating authorities who had alleged that the applicant is not co-operating with the investigation. Subsequently, an application was moved on 24.05.2022 stating therein that despite efforts for arresting the accused in terms of the non-bailable warrant issued on 09.05.2022, the applicant has concealed himself, as a result whereof, non-bailable warrant could not be executed, as such, it was prayed that a proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. be issued and published against the applicant. An affidavit was also filed on 24.05.2022 in support of the application, wherein the averments similar to the one made in the said application were made. Subsequently, on 25.05.2022, an application was moved by the Investigating Officer stating that in pursuance to the non-bailable warrant issued on 09.05.2022, efforts were made for arresting the accused which has resulted in vain and as an application had already been filed on 24.05.2022 for passing orders against the accused under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., and prayed that the orders be passed. It was also recorded in the said application that during the investigation, it was revealed that the applicant is in the process of selling of valuable assets and may leave the country and as such, it was essential that process be issued against the applicant under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. On the said applications, an order came to be passed on 14.06.2022 wherein after recording the contents of the application and the submissions made by the Public Prosecutor, the court recorded that prima facie, there was no reason to disbelieve the contents of the application or the affidavit in its support and thus, proceeded to pass an order for issuance of process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. The said order is under challenge in the present proceedings.

5. The Counsel for the applicant argues that the application filed for issuance of process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. clearly fell short of the requirements prescribed for issuance of process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., inasmuch as, in the application, it was only stated that the non-bailable warrant issued by the court could not be executed. He thus argues that based upon the application and the affidavit, the court could not have formed an opinion which is sine qua non for exercise of powers under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.

6. The Counsel for the applicant further argues that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court, the process issued under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is also defective, inasmuch as, neither any specified time nor any specified place has been recorded in the proclamation and thus, the proclamation falls short of the requirements as specified under Section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C. He lastly submits that in the present case, in which the investigating authority has approached the court for issuance of the process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. was malafide and only with