JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 12.10.2023 [hereafter ‘impugned order’], passed in by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (SC-POCSO), North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereafter ‘Sessions Court’], in SC No. 275/2023, arising out of FIR No. 462/2023, registered at Police Station New UsmanPur, Delhi, for commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter ‘IPC’] and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereafter ‘POCSO Act’], vide which the

petitioner herein had been declared a ‘proclaimed offender’ under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter ‘Cr.P.C.’].

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 13.06.2023, at about 8:30 PM, the complainant had sent her 8-year-old daughter, ‘A’, to a nearby shop to buy salt. Shortly thereafter, the child returned crying and informed her family members that while she was on her way to the shop, co-accused Roshan, who lives nearby, had called her inside her house. It is alleged that when Roshan went to the kitchen, the present petitioner pulled down the child’s pyjama, touched her private parts and thereafter made her sit on his lap after removing his pants. When the child started crying, Roshan allegedly slapped her. The victim had later reported the incident to her, and subsequently, the present FIR came to be registered.

3. On 20.06.2023, the petitioner’s application seeking anticipatory bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Court. Thereafter, on an application moved by the Investigating Officer (I.O.), Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) were issued against the petitioner vide order dated 08.08.2023, returnable on 18.08.2023. On 18.08.2023, the learned Sessions Court issued process against the petitioner under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., returnable on 26.09.2023.

4. In the meantime, the petitioner filed a second anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Court on 28.08.2023. On 12.10.2023, after recording the statement of the concerned process

server, the learned Sessions Court declared the petitioner a proclaimed offender by way of the impugned order. The petitioner thereafter moved an application seeking cancellation of the process issued under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. However, both the second anticipatory bail application as well as the application seeking cancellation of the process issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were dismissed vide order dated 07.11.2023.

5. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.10.2023 declaring him a proclaimed offender, the petitioner initially filed W.P. (Crl.) No. 3791/2023 before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.12.2023, with liberty granted to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy by filing a revision petition against the impugned order. Pursuant thereto, the present petition has been filed.

6. The operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Court on the first date of hearing, i.e., 09.01.2024. However, upon dismissal of the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner before this Court on 11.09.2024, the interim order passed in the present petition was also withdrawn vide order dated 11.09.2024.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the learned Sessions Court erred in passing the impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender. It is argued that the order is contrary to the mandate of Section 82(4) of Cr.P.C., as the petitioner had not been charged with any of the offences specified therein and, therefore, could not have been declared a proclaimed offender within

the meaning of the provision. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Court wrongly concluded that the petitioner was absconding and deliberately avoiding his appearance before the Court. The learned counsel argues that the petitioner was in fact pursuing legal remedies available to him by filing ant