Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 17366
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
RAJ KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
A482/39894/2022
A proclamation issued under Section 82 CrPC against an accused who has been absconding for eight years despite being summoned under Section 319 CrPC is valid and cannot be quashed.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - SUMMONS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 319 CRPC - APPLICANT ABSENT - PROCLAMATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 82 CRPC - QUASHING OF PROCLAMATION SOUGHT - HELD - NO ILLEGALITY OR INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER - APPLICATION DISMISSED
Fact of the Case:
An FIR was lodged against the applicant under Sections 363, 366 IPC. The police submitted a charge-sheet against the co-accused but not against the applicant. After framing of charges against the co-accused, an application under Section 319 CrPC was filed by the first informant stating that the applicant was also involved in the incident and should be summoned to face trial. The application was allowed by the court below and the applicant was summoned. However, the applicant did not appear before the court below and a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC was issued against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant had not appeared before the court below despite being summoned under Section 319 CrPC and that a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC had been rightly issued against him. The court also found that there was no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
Issues: Whether the proclamation issued against the applicant under Section 82 CrPC should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicant had been absconding for eight years despite being summoned under Section 319 CrPC and that the proclamation under Section 82 CrPC had been rightly issued against him. The court also found that there was no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
Final Decision: The application under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed.
Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39894 of 2022
Applicant :- Raj Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Beerendra Singh Pal,Manoj
Kumar Keshari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for
the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed
by the applicant for quashing the impugned order dated
19.11.2022 as well as entire criminal proceedings of S.T.
No. 106 of 2013, (State Vs. Virendra Kumar), arising out
of Case Crime No. 295 of 2012, under Sections 363, 366
IPC, Police Station Bidhuna, District Auraiya, pending in
the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C./
Court No.1, Auraiya.
An FIR was lodged against the applicant under Sections
363, 366 IPC and the police after concluding the
investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the co-
accused Virendra Kumar but did not file any charge-sheet
against the present applicant. Subsequently, after framing
of charges against the co-accused Virendra Kumar,
statement of witnesses were recorded.
Thereafter, an application under Section 319 CrPC was
filed by the first informant stating therein that on the basis
of evidence/statement recorded during the course of trial,
applicant is also involved in the incident and as such, he
be also summoned to face trial. The said application was
allowed by the court below vide order dated 13.10.2014
and the next date 27.10.2014 was fixed.
Perusal of the record shows that even after lapse of more
than eight years, applicant had not yet appeared before
the court below and as such, proclamation under Section
82 CrPC has been issued against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the
proclamation issued against the applicant under Section
82 CrPC be quashed.
Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that despite being
summoned vide order dated 13.10.2014, the applicant
had not yet appeared before the court below and as such,
proclamation has rightly been issued against him. There
is absolutely no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order
and the present application is liable to be dismissed.
Having considered the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and considering the reasons
assigned in the impugned order and keeping in view the
fact that the applicant was summoned under Section 319
CrPC vide order dated 13.10.2014, however, despite
lapse of eight years, applicant has been absconding and
as such, proclamation under Section 82 CrPC has rightly
been issued against him. I do not find any illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order passed by the court below.
Present application under Section 482 CrPC is devoid of
merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.1.2023
Nadim
Digitally signed by :-
NADIM ALAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Digitally signed by :-
NADIM ALAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
