Accused Who Fled Can Be Prosecuted Under Section 174A IPC Even if Proclamation Under Section 82 CrPC is Quashed: Supreme Court
In Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr., the Supreme Court ruled that even if a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is quashed, the accused can still be penalized under Section 174A IPC for non-appearance in response to the proclamation. The bench, comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, addressed the case where the Punjab & Haryana High Court had refused to quash the proclamation and the offence under Section 174A IPC, despite the appellant's exoneration in a cheque dishonor case.
Section 174A IPC, introduced by the 2005 Amendment, penalizes defiance of a court order requiring attendance. The punishment for failing to comply is up to three years' imprisonment or a fine, with a higher penalty for a proclamation under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's decision, asserting that even if the proclamation is later invalidated, the prosecution for failure to appear under Section 174A IPC can proceed. The Court emphasized that Section 174A is an independent offence, separate from the proclamation under Section 82.
However, in the appellant's case, where a compromise had been reached and the money was paid, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings, including the FIR under Section 174A IPC, and allowed the appeal. The appellant's status as a "proclaimed person" was also set aside.