Can’t say person absconding if abroad before warrants, rules HC

A person cannot be dubbed “absconding” when he has gone to a distant place before the issuance of the warrant, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed. The court asserted that the person, under the circumstances, could not be accused of evading the execution of warrants.

Referring to judicial precedents in the matter, Justice Sandeep Moudgil said it was held that “a person who had gone abroad even before the issuance of the warrant of arrest cannot be said to be absconding or concealing himself with the intention to disrupt the execution of that warrant”.

The assertion came in a case of a person, who was a UK resident since 2006 –– well before the FIR’s registration. The matter was placed before Justice Moudgil’s Bench after the petitioner sought the quashing of proclamation order passed by the Nawanshahr Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case registered under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of the IPC.

The petitioner contended that her son had filed a divorce petition. The complainant-wife turned furious after she received the summons on April 9, 2014, and lodged a complaint the next day, leading to the FIR’s registration against the petitioner, her husband, son, and daughter.

The petitioner submitted she came to know that she had been falsely shown as residing at an Indian address.

The State’s stand in the matter was the petitioner was evading the process of court. Her failure to comply with the orders showed lack of respect for the same. “A person who obstructs the process of law and evades it does not deserve any concession,” it was added.

Justice Moudgil clarified that a proclamation under Section 82 of the CrPC might be issued against an individual by a court if it was reasonably believed that the person had absconded or was hiding, making it impossible for the warrant to be carried out.

“From the perusal of the case file as well as from the support of the documents, it can be inferred that the petitioner is a resident of UK and has been a citizen of UK since the year 2006. Therefore, there was no occasion for her to evade the process of law intentionally, as she was never served in accordance with law. Thus the proclamation order dated March 16, 2015, is in gross violation of Section 82 of the CrPC,” the court observed, while setting aside the impugned order as bad in law and not sustainable.