{"id":338687,"date":"2025-01-09T09:00:51","date_gmt":"2025-01-09T03:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=338687"},"modified":"2025-01-08T19:12:33","modified_gmt":"2025-01-08T13:42:33","slug":"s-174a-ipc-independent-offense-proclamation-section-82-crpc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/09\/s-174a-ipc-independent-offense-proclamation-section-82-crpc\/","title":{"rendered":"Section 174A IPC is an independent and substantive offence that can continue despite extinguishment of proclamation under Section 82 CrPC: Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In an appeal filed against the judgment and order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby under Section 482<\/a> of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a>(‘CrPC’) the Court refused to quash complaint case, summoning order; and order declaring the accused a proclaimed offender passed by the Judicial Magistrate, the division bench of C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol*<\/span>, JJ. while setting aside the impugned judgment held that Section 174A<\/a> of Penal code, 1860<\/a> (‘IPC’) is an independent, substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation under Section 82<\/a> CrPC<\/a> is extinguished. It is a stand-alone offence.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The accused, who ran a business awarded a contract for 8-laning a National Highway (NH-1) in Delhi by the National Highways Authority of India (‘NHAI’), entered into an agreement with respondent 2 for stone crushing. The agreement included mutual specifications and payment security through cheques. However, a dispute arose when the work did not meet the agreed specifications. Consequently, the NHAI terminated the contract on 13-01-2009, and cashed the bank guarantee. Despite the issuance of a \u00e2\u201a\u00b910 lakh cheque, which was encashed on 16-10-2009, and a subsequent cheque from the bank guarantee account in November 2009, the accused was allegedly involved in a dispute regarding unclaimed cheques.<\/p>\n

A complaint was filed on 08-06-2010, and summons were issued on 17-08-2010. After multiple transfers of the case, the accused was declared a proclaimed offender (PO) on 28-11-2016, following non-appearance. The accused’s case was further complicated by a subsequent FIR related to similar issues, and the quashing petition filed by the accused was dismissed.<\/p>\n

The impugned order dismissed the accused’s petition under Section 482<\/a> of CrPC<\/a>, referencing an earlier judgment that disallowed petitions by proclaimed offenders. The validity of the proclamation was determined to be a matter for the Court that issued it. This order is the subject of the current appeal.<\/p>\n

Issues<\/h3>\n