Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22629
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J
CHENNAM RANGASWAMY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12243 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. VIVEKANANDA N
For the Respondents: SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP
Proclamation under Cr.P.C. requires cogent reasons; lack of such leads to quashing.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 82 and 83 - Proclamation issued against accused for non-execution of summons - Issuance of proclamation requires cogent reasons and cannot be resorted to as a matter of routine. - The learned Magistrate failed to record satisfaction, showing lack of application of mind. The case emphasizes the necessity of adequate reasoning before issuing a proclamation. (Paras 3, 5, 6)
(B) Appeal - Satisfactory compliance with undertakings given by the accused is emphasized. Failure to comply with mandatory requirements will lead to quashing of such orders. (Paras 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner facing trial under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. Proclamation issued for non-execution of summons, challenged in the petition. Undertakings of the petitioner for presence were provided.
Findings of Court:
Court set aside the impugned order and allowed petitioner’s undertaking to appear before the trial court on all dates of hearing.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the issuance of a proclamation was justified without indicating that the accused absconded or evaded legal processes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. should only be issued when there is clear evidence of the accused evading process. The lack of adequate reasoning led to the order's quashing.
Result: The impugned order was quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments presented for and against the issuance of proclamation. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's observations on lack of reasoning behind the magistrate's order. (Para 5) |
| 3. court's decision to quash the order based on procedural non-compliance. (Para 6) |
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner–accused No.3 assailing the order dated 08.10.2024 passed in C.C. No.4739/2021 by the Court of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, whereby a proclamation was issued against him under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though notice has not been served on the second respondent–complainant, in view of the undertaking furnished by the petitioner that he will henceforth remain present before the trial court on all dates of hearing, this Court is inclined to dispense with notice to the second respondent, since the present order does not touch upon the merits of the case so as to prejudice the complainant.
2. Brief facts of the case:
The petitioner is facing trial in C.C. No.4739/2021 for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, has invoked the provisions of Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and issued a proclamation against the petitioner, which is now under challenge.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the impugned order, has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Tarabai v. The State of Karnataka and Another (Criminal Petition No.200367/2022, decided on 19.04.2022). He would contend that issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. must be preceded by the recording of cogent reasons indicating that the accused has either absconded or is deliberately concealing himself so as to prevent the execution of a warrant. It is further submitted that proclamation is an extraordinary measure to be invoked only in deserving cases and not as a matter of routine.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader, in view of the undertaking now given by the petitioner to secure his presence before the trial court, submits that if the petitioner honours such undertaking by filing it formally within one week, the impugned order may be set aside, subject to strict compliance with the said undertaking.
5. On perusal of the records, it is evident that the petitioner is being prosecuted for an offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The proceedings are admittedly in the nature of a summons trial. For non-execution of summons, the learned Magistrate has, without adequate reasoning, proceeded to take the drastic step of issuing a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. The impugned order does not disclose any satisfaction recorded by the Magistrate to the effect that the petitioner had absconded or was intentionally evading the process of law. As held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, issuance of proclamation is an exceptional remedy and cannot be resorted to as a matter of course. The order under challenge, therefore, demonstrates a lack of application of mind and non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C.
6. Be that as it may, in view of the undertaking furnished by the petitioner–accused No.3 before this Court that he will appear before the trial court on every date of hearing, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order warrants interference. Accordingly, the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C. No.4739/2021, issuing a proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C., is liable to be recalled, subject to the petitioner honouring his undertaking to appear before the trial court as and when required.
7. For the forgoing reasons, this court passes following
ORDER
i) The impugned order dated 08.10.2024 passed in C.C.
No.4739/2021 by the Court of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed and set aside.
ii) The petitioner shall regularly appear before the learned Magistrate on all dat
