Delhi High Court Stays Proclaimed Offender Order: Petitioner Directed to Join Investigation in Absence of Prior Knowledge - 2025-12-12

A Fresh Start: Delhi High Court Grants Relief in PO Case

In a significant order, the Delhi High Court has stayed a trial court's decision to declare a petitioner a Proclaimed Offender (PO), offering the individual an opportunity to cooperate with the ongoing investigation. The case highlights crucial procedural safeguards for individuals who may have been unaware of pending criminal proceedings initiated in their absence.

The Backdrop: A Dispute Across Borders

The matter reaches the High Court via a petition filed by Pervez Ali Ahmed, who sought the setting aside of an order dated September 18, 2023, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate at Saket Courts.

The legal conflict stems from a criminal case (Cr. Case No. 5438/2020). Petitioner Ahmed, a permanent resident of the USA, submitted that he had moved abroad in 2018, well before the registration of the subject FIR. According to the record, initial bailable and non-bailable warrants issued against him had returned unexecuted. Consequently, the trial court had initiated proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), culminating in him being declared a PO after the examination of the process server.

Arguments and The Court’s Intervention

During the proceedings, counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was entirely unaware of the existence of the case against him, leading to the Section 82 proceedings being conducted in absentia .

Responding to these submissions on December 12, 2025, the bench presided over by Justice Ajay Digpaul determined that staying the lower court's impugned order was the most appropriate course of action, provided that the petitioner adheres to investigative requirements. The Court further ensured that the principles of victim participation, as mandated by the Supreme Court, were strictly observed.

Key Observations

The Court underscored the importance of transparency and procedural fairness:

• On Victim's Rights: "In view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh & Ors. vs. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr. , 2022 9 SCC 321, the complainant/victim is entitled to be heard in the present proceedings."
• On Procedural Fairness: "The petitioner was not aware of the present proceedings, and that proceedings under Section 82 CrPC were initiated against him in absentia."
• On Judicial Discretion: "This Court deems it appropriate to stay the impugned order dated 18.09.2023 passed by learned MM, South-East, Saket Courts, Delhi."

The Road Ahead

The High Court has explicitly directed the petitioner to join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. Furthermore, the Court mandated that the Investigating Officer must duly inform the complainant or their representatives of the status of these proceedings, ensuring they are given the opportunity to be heard, whether in person or via video conferencing, at the next hearing scheduled for March 24, 2026.

This order serves as a reminder of the judicial vigilance maintained regarding service of notice and the right of an accused to participate in their own defense, particularly in cases involving international movement. By balancing the need for ongoing investigation with the petitioner's claim of lack of notice, the Delhi High Court has reasserted the necessity of due process before the drastic step of declaring a person a Proclaimed Offender is finalized.