SUNIL TYAGI  Vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 1 of 17 $~
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%

Date of Decision: 07th January, 2021
+ CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.A. 19244/2013

SUNIL TYAGI ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajayinder Sangwan, Mr. Raj
Sharma, Mr. Arun Rathi,
Mr. Summinder Paswan and
Mr. Siddharth Gill, Advocates

versus

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel
with Mr. Chaitanya Gosain,
Advocate for Delhi Police along with
Mr. Rajesh Deo, DCP /Legal.
Mr. Nikhil Goel , SPP with Mr. Vinay
Mathew and Mr. Dushyant Sarna,
Advocates for respondent/CBI .
Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior
Advocate as Amicu s Curia e with
Ms. Manvi Priya, Ms. Aakashi Lodha,
Mr. Sukrit Seth, Ms. Nih arika Kaul
and Mr. Sanjeev Seshadri, Advocates .
Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate as
Amicus Curiae
Prof. (Dr.) G.S. Bajpai, Professor of
Criminology & Criminal Justice,
National Law University, Delhi as
Amicus Curiae
Mr. Rajs hekhar Rao, Advocate as
Amicus Curiae

+ CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 & CRL.M.A. 15894/2013

TANMAY KUMAR ….. Petitioner
2021:DHC:60
CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 2 of 17 Through: Dr. L. S. Chaudhary , Advocate

versus

STATE ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel
with Mr. Chaitanya Gosain,
Advocate for D elhi Police along with
Mr. Rajesh Deo, DCP/Legal.
Mr. Nikhil Goel , SPP with Mr. Vinay
Mathew and Mr. Dushyant Sarna,
Advocates for respondent/CBI .
Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior
Advocate as Amicu s Curia e with
Ms. Manvi Priya, Ms. Aakashi Lodha,
Mr. Sukrit Seth, Ms. Niharika Kaul
and Mr. Sanjeev Seshadri, Advocates .
Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate as
Amicus Curiae
Prof. (Dr.) G.S. Bajpai, Professor of
Criminology & Criminal Justice,
National Law University, Delhi as
Amicus Curiae
Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Advocate as
Amicus Curiae

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

CRL.M.C. 5328/2013
1. The petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No.27/2013 dated 22nd
January, 2013, P S Amar Colony under Section 174 A IPC.
2. The petitioner is a Dire ctor of M/s Core Builder s Pvt. Ltd. , who issued
a cheque bearing No. 002310 dated 06th July, 2010 for Rs.20,00,000/ – to
2021:DHC:60
CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 3 of 17 respondent No.2. The aforesaid cheque was dishonoured upon presentation
due to in sufficiency of funds whereupon respondent No.2 institute d a
complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act against M/s Core
Builder s Pvt. Ltd. as well as against the petitioner.
3. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons to the petitioner
at the addresses given in the complaint namely 1007, New Delhi House , 27,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 and Prabhat N agar, Meerut City,
Meerut, U.P. The summons issued to the Barakhamba Road address returned
unserved with the remarks that there was no firm with the name of M/s Core
Builder s Pvt. Ltd. at the given address whereas the summons issued to
Meerut address returned unserved with the remarks that the address was
incomplete as no house number has been given in the complain t.
4. Respondent No.2 filed an application dated 06th January, 2011 before
the lea rned Metropolitan Magistrate in which it was stated that the petitioner
had shifted from address given in the complaint to the new address, namely
Apartment No.601, Block No.4, Kailash Dham Apartments, Sector -51,
Noida, U.P. whereupon the Court issued fres h summons at the above address
which returned unserved with the report that the flat was lying vacant since
last two years.
5. Respondent No.2 filed another application dated 13th October, 2011 in
which the new address of the petitioner was given as Flat No. 1012,
Ashadeep Apartment, Oshiwara, Mumbai whereupon the Court issued the
fresh summons at the aforesaid address which returned unserved with the
remarks that the address was incomplete .
6. On 22nd May, 2012, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate recorded that
the accused was willfully avoiding the service of summons and issued
2021:DHC:60
CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 4 of 17 bailable warrants for Rs.50,000/ – with one surety, returnable on 04th July,
2012. The bailable warrants issued to the petitioner returned with the report
that there was no company of the given name at 1007, New Delhi House 27,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi -110001; Apartment No.601, Block No.4,
Kailash Dham Apartments, Sector -51, Noida, U.P. was lying vacant for the
last two years ; and the Meerut address was incomplete. The order dated 22nd
May, 2012 is reproduced hereunder: –
“Summons issued to the accused received back
unserved. It is submitted by the complainant that accused is
willfully avoiding the service of summons and this case is
pending since 01.09.2010.
Perusal of the record shows that the matter is pending
since 01.09.2010 and since then, summons have been issued
to the accused a number of times. However, accused has
not put in his appearance in the court till date. Moreover,
the complainant in this case is a senior citizen aged about
69 years and the cheque amount involved in the case is
Rs.20 lacs. Perusal of record further shows that the
complainant has earlier furnished two new addresses of the
accused, one of Noida (U.P.) and second of Mumbai
(Maharashtra).
From the reports received on summons issued to the
accused a number of times, would suggest that accused is
willfully avoiding the service of summons and his presence
cannot be secured in court without adopting coercive
measures against him.
In the circumstances, issue B/ W in the sum of Rs.50,000/ –
with one surety in the like amount through concerned
SP/DCP at all the addresses of the accused returnable on
04.07.2012. ”
(Emphasis supplied)

7. On 04th July, 2012, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued non –
bailable warrants against the accused returnable on 17th August, 2012. On
2021:DHC:60
CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 5 of 17 17th August, 2012, respondent No.2 gave a fresh address of the petitioner
namely Alphag – Epitome Projects, Golf View Corporate Towers, Sector -42,
Golf Cours e Road, Gurgaon -122002, Haryana whereupon non-bailable
warrants were issued at the above address which returned back with the
report that no such person was working at the given address.
8. On 26th October, 2012, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that
the accused was absconding to avoid execu tion of warrants and issued
process under Sections 82 CrPC. The order dated 26th October, 2012 is
reproduced hereunder: –
“NBW issued against the accused on 17.08.2012 remained
unexecuted till date.
Perusal of the record shows that earlier warrants were
issued against the accused a number of times. However,
warrants could not be executed against the accused d ue to
one reason or the other. It appears that accused has
absconded/concealing himself to avoid the execution of
warrants issued against him .
Hence, issue process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the accused
on filing of PF for 06.12.2012. PF be filed within one week
from today.
Process server who will execute the process against the
accused will take care that there must be a gap of 30 days
between the publi cation of the proclamation and the next
date of hearing.
Put up on 06.12.2012 for the a ppearance of the
accused/report .”
(Emphasis supplied)

9. On 10th January, 2013, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate recorded
the statement of Head Constable Om Dutt who deposed that he executed the
process under Section 82 CrPC by pasting a copy of the process at A lphag –
Epitome Projects, Golf View Corporate Towers, Sector -42, Golf Cours e
2021:DHC:60
CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 6 of 17 Road, Gurgaon -122002, Haryana on 06th November, 2012. The learned
Metropolitan Mag istrate declared the petitioner as an absconder and issued
process under Section 83 CrPC against the petitioner. Copy of the order was
sent to S.H.O., P.S. Amar Colony with a direction to re gister a case under
Section 174 A IPC against the petitioner who fa iled to appear before the
Court despite publication of proclamation under Section 82 CrPC.
10. On 22nd January, 2013, P.S. Amar Colony r egistered FIR under
Section 174 A IPC against the petitioner. The relevant portion of the FIR is
reproduced hereunder: –
“Bhup inder Paul Gupta Vs. Core Builder s Pvt. CC
No.289/1, U/s 138 N.I. Act, 10.01.2013, present
Complainant alongwith proxy counsel Sh. Rakesh Kumar.
None for the accused despite repeated calls. Process server
HC Om Dutt from PS Amar Colony, New Delhi in perso n let
the statement of process server HC Om Dutt, who executed
the process against the accused U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be recorded
separately. Statement of process recorded separately, in
view of the statement made by the process server, it is clear
that process U /s 82 Cr.P.C. was duly executed against the
accused Sunil Tyagi, but despite execution of process U/s 82
Cr.P.C. accused has not turned up till date, therefore, it
may be concluded, that accused has ran away from the
process of the court, hence, accused Su nil Tyagi is declared
an absconder. Issued process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the
accused. Also, copy of order be sent to SHO PS Amar
Colony, New Delhi with direction to register a case against
the accused Sunil Tyagi U/s 174 A IPC because, accused
Sunil Tyag i has failed to appear in the court despite the
publication of proclamation U/s 82 Cr.P.C again st him.
Compliance report be f iled in the court on the next date of
hearing. Ahlmed is directed to send copy of order to the
SHO PS Amar Colony, New Delhi with in one week from
today. Put up on 05.02.2013 for report on process to be
issued against the accused U/s 83 Cr.P.C. and compliance
2021:DHC:60
CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 7 of 17 report to be filed by the SHO PS Amar Colony, New Delhi,
short date is given as complainant is a senior citizen aged
about 70 years. SD English (Dheeraj Mittal) MM -02, N.I.T.
Act/South East, New Delhi 01.01.2013. D.O. to register a
case and mark investigation to HC Pradeep No.642/SE as
per direction of the Hon’ble Court. Sd. English Insp.
Virender Jain SHO/Amar Colony, 22.01.2 013.”

11. On 09th June, 2013, an official from PS Amar Colony visited the
residence of the petitioner’s father at House No.301, Prabhat Nagar, near
Saket, Meerut, U.P. and informed him that the petitioner had been declared
Proclaimed Offender whereupon the pe titioner engaged a counsel who
inspected the Court record and then filed an application for cancellation of
proceedings under Sections 82/83 CrPC on 15th July, 2013 on the ground
that the petitioner was never served with the summons. It was submitted that
the Meerut address given by respondent No.2 in the complaint was
incomplete whereas the other addresses given by respondent No.2 were
incorrect.
12. On 16th July, 2013, the petitioner settled the matter under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act with respondent No.2 for Rs.40,00,000/ –
as full and final settlement out of which Rs.19,00,000/ – were paid before the
Court on 16th July, 2013 and the balance amount of Rs.21,00,000/ – was paid
in instalments . On 16th July, 2013, learned Metropolitan Magistrate allowed
the petitioner’s application for recalling the process under Sections 82 and
83 CrPC and admitted the petitioner to bail.
13. On 11th March, 2016, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate
compounded the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act , in
view of the settlement between the parties and acquitted the petitioner.
2021:DHC:60
CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 8 of 17 14. On 24th July, 2013, the police filed the charge sheet against t he
petitioner under Section 174 A IPC before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate in which the Court took the cognizan ce of the offence and issued
summons to the petitioner.
15. The petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 27/2013 under Section
174A IPC, inter-alia, on the following grounds:
15.1 The petitioner has been declared a Proclaimed Offender without due
service of summo ns/warrants. The Meerut address of petitioner furnished by
respondent No.2 in the complaint was incomplete whereas the other four
addresses furnished by respondent No.2 were incorrect. The petitioner is a
permanent resident of House No. New 301, Prabhat N agar, near Saket,
Meerut, U.P. Respondent No.2 never furnished the said address at any stage
of the proceedings before the Trial Court and the notices were never sent to
the petitioner at the above address. The copy of the passport containing the
above a ddress has been filed in this petition.
15.2 An accused in respect of an offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act cannot be declared as a Proclaimed Offender
under Section 82(4) CrPC which applies to only nineteen offences
mentioned in Section 82(4) CrPC , namely under Sections 302, 304, 364,
367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or
460 IPC.
15.3 Section 82 CrPC deals with two situations in which the action can be
taken against the accused who is evading the proces s of warrant. Section
82(1) CrPC deals with cases where a person , against whom the warrant has
been issued, has absconded or conceale d himself so that such warrant cannot
be executed. The Court in such cases is empowered to publish a written
2021:DHC:60
CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 9 of 17 proclamation r equiring the accused to appear at a specific place and time,
not less than 30 days from the date of publishing such proclamation. The
failure of the accused to appear upon such proclamation is an offence under
Section 174A IPC with imprisonment of a term w hich extend to three years
or with fine or both.
15.4 Section 82(4) CrPC relates to offences punishable under Section 302,
304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436,
449, 459 or 460 IPC and upon failure of the accused to appear , as required
by the proclamation, the Court is empowered, after making such inquiry as it
thinks fit, to pronounce him as a Proclaimed Offender and make a
declaration to that effect. The failure to appear upon the declaration of a
person as a Proclaimed Off ender under Section 8 2(4) CrPC is an offence
under Section 174 A IPC with imprisonment up to seven years or fine or with
both.
15.5 The petitioner in the present case was accused of an offence under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The petitioner is a p ermanent
residence of Meerut and the summons were never issued at the given address
nor were served on him and, therefore, the issuance of bailable warrants and
non-bailable warrants against the petitioner is not valid in law.
Notwithstanding the invalidit y of the warrants issued, the petitioner ’s
submission is that the petitioner cannot be declared as a Proclaimed
Offender under Section 82(4) CrPC which applies only to 19 categories of
offences mentioned therein. The declaration of the petitioner as a Proc laimed
Offender is, therefore, contrary to the law.
15.6 The petitioner settled the matter with respondent No.2 by making the
payment of Rs.40,00,000/ – and the offence under Section 138 Negotiable
2021:DHC:60
CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 10 of 17 Instruments Act ha d been compounded and the petitioner ha d been
acquitted.
Findings
16. The petitioner is a permanent resident of House No. New 301, Prabhat
Nagar, near Saket, Meerut, U.P. However, the complete address of the
petitioner was never furnished by respondent No.2 at any stage of the
proceedings before the Tri al Court and notices were never sent to the
petitioner at the correct address. Respondent No.2 furnished four addresses
of the petitioner which were all incorrect. The learned Metropolitan
Magistrate declared the petitioner as a Proclaimed Offender withou t
satisfying whether the petitioner was served with the summons or not . The
learned Metropolitan Magistrate also failed to notice that the correct address
of the petitioner had not been furnished by respondent No.2. This Court is
satisfied that the petiti oner was never served with the summons and he did
not abscond and conceal himself. The declaration of the petitioner as a
Proclaimed Offender is , therefore, not valid. That apart , the petitioner has
not been charged with any of the 19 offences mentioned in Section 82(4)
CrPC. Since the declaration of the petitioner as a Proclaimed Offender is
invalid, the petitioner’s prosecution under Section 174A IPC is liable to be
quashed .
Conclusion
17. The petition is allowed and FIR No.27/2013 dated 22nd January, 2013 ,
P.S. Amar Colony under Section 174A IPC and the proceedings emanating
therefrom are hereby quashed.
18. Pending application is disposed of f.

2021:DHC:60
CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 11 of 17 CRL M.C. 4438/2013
19. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 25th July, 2017
whereby the learned Metrop olitan Magistrate declared the petitioner a
Proclaimed Offender and the order dated 07th August, 2013 whereby the
learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate fr amed a charge against the petitioner
under section 174 A IPC.
20. On 13th March, 2004, FIR No. 174/2004 was registere d against the
petitioner under S ections 279 and 338 IPC at PS Pandav Nagar on the
averments that the petitioner was driving motorcycle No. DL -7S-R-3033 and
he hit the complainant Gauri Shankar at Ganesh Nagar Complex which
resulted in grievous in juries to the complainant; and the accident occurred
due to negligent driving o f the motorcycle by the petitioner. The Police filed
the charge sheet against the petitioner on 25th February, 2005. The learned
Metropolitan Magistrate framed the charge agai nst the petitioner on 22nd
June, 2007 .
21. On 12th January, 2009, the Investigating Officer submitted before the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate that the complainant Gauri Shankar ha d
expired whereupon the case was adjourned to 29th July, 2009.
22. The petitioner stopped appearing before the Metropolitan Magistrate
under the impression that the case ha d been closed du e to the death of
complainant. However, proceedings continued in which non -bailable
warrants were issued and there after, the process under Section s 82/83 CrPC
was issued against the petitioner and the petitioner was declared as a
Proclaimed Offender on 2 5th July, 2011.
23. S.H.O., PS Pandav Nagar has filed the status report according to
which the complainant Gauri Shankar expired and his legal heirs could not
2021:DHC:60
CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 12 of 17 be traced despite the enquiries made.
24. The petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 174/2004 under Section
174A IPC, inter -alia, on the following grounds:
24.1 The petitioner cannot be declared as a Proclaimed Offender under
Section 82(4) CrPC as Section 8 2(4) applies only to the 19 categories of the
offences mentioned in Section 82(4) CrPC.
24.2 Without prejudice, it is submitted that the petitioner was never
served with the warrants before being declared as a Proclaimed Offender. It
is submitted that the peti tioner is a permanent resident of A -36/1, Gali
No.10 , West Vinod Nagar , Delhi – 110091.
24.3 The petitioner disputes the report dated 24th February, 2011 of
Constable Shiv Kumar that the premises were found locked. It is submitted
that the same Process Server , Constable Shiv Kumar , in his report dated 22nd
July, 2011 in respect of the process under Section 83 CrPC had stated that he
could not locate the house of the petitioner.
24.4 The Trial Court passed the order dated 25th July, 2011 in a routine
manner without s atisfying whether the petitioner was evading the arrest or
not. It is submitted that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not record
the statement of the process server. The statement of the process server is in
a proforma filled up with hand which ha s been treated as a proof to the effect
that the petitioner is evading the process of law. In the report dated 22nd July,
2011, the process server stated that he could not locate the house of the
petitioner whereas in the evidence, the process server state d that there was
no immovable property in the name of the accused which could be attached
under Section 83 CrPC. The statement of the process server that he pasted
the process on the petitioner’s property is also incorrect as the process server
2021:DHC:60
CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 13 of 17 could not locate the petitioner’s house as per the subsequent report.
24.5 Reliance is placed on Md. Nazrul Islam v. State of Assam , 2008 Cri
LJ 3374 , in which the Gauhati High Court held that before issuing the
declaration, the Court must record reason s to believe that the person, against
whom the proclamation has to be issued, is absconding or is concealing
himself. The High Court further observed that mere return of warrants of
arrest without execution without anything more does not authorize the
Magistrate to issue an order for proclamation and attachment. Proclamation
and attachment affect certain valuable rights of a person although that person
might be facing a criminal case as an accused and the same is not to be
interfered with in a casual and mechanical manner, b ut effected by strict
adherence to the provision s of law.
Findings
25. This Court is satisfied that the petitioner was never served with the
summons/warrants before being declared as a Proclaimed Offender and
therefore, the declaration of the petitioner as a P roclaimed Offender is not
valid. The Trial Court has passed the impugned order in a routine manner
without satisfying whether the petitioner was avoiding or evading arrest. The
declaration of the petitioner as a Proclaimed Offender is not valid and the
charge against the petitioner under Section 174A IPC is liable to be quashed .
That apart, the petitioner was not charged with any of the 19 offences
mentioned in Section 82(4) CrPC.
Conclusion
26. The impugned order dated 25th July, 2017 declaring the petitio ner as a
Proclaimed Offender and the order dated 07th August, 2013 framing a charge
against the petitioner under Section 174A IPC are hereby set aside and the
2021:DHC:60
CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 14 of 17 proceedings against the petitioner under Section 174A IPC are hereby
quashed . The pending applica tion is also disposed of f.
Post script
27. During the course of the hearing dated 27th November, 2013, Mr.
Gopal Subramaniam , learned senior counsel present in Court submitted that
the orders under Section 82 CrPC were passed in a routine manner and
guidelines be laid down to ensure that orders under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC
are passed after following due process of law.
28. Vide order dated 21st November, 2014, this Court directed Delhi
Police as well as CBI to file the status report s with respect to the Proclaime d
Offenders . Delhi Police and CBI have filed their respective status report s. As
per the status report of Delhi Police, 18,541 persons have been declared
Proclaimed Offenders out of which 6000 Proclaimed Offenders were
accused of heinous crimes. As regards CBI, 820 persons were declared as
Proclaimed Offenders as on 31st December, 2014 out of which 184
Proclaimed Offenders and 193 Absconders were arrested.
29. Vide order dated 31st July, 2019, Delhi police and CBI were directed
to file fresh stat us report s. As per the fresh status report s of the Delhi Police,
number of Proclaimed Offender s have incre ased to 26,532 as on 31st
September, 2019 out of whic h 3826 Proclaimed Offender s have been
arrested, prosecution has been launched against 1601 Proclaimed O ffender s
and propert ies of 28 Proclaimed Offender s have been attached. As regards
CBI, further 793 accused persons have been declared as Proclaimed
Offender s between 1st January, 2015 to 31st October, 2019 out of which only
68 Proclaimed Offender s have been arreste d, properties of 21 Proclaimed
Offender s have been attached and prosecution has been launched against 2
2021:DHC:60
CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 15 of 17 Proclaimed Offender s under Section 174A IPC.
30. This Court appointed Mr. Dayan Krishnan and Mr. N. Hariharan ,
Senior Advocate s as amicus curiae to assist this Court with respect to the
need to consider the measures to be taken to ensure that order s under
Sections 82 and 83 CrPC are passed after following the prescribed procedure
and in cases, where the accused persons have been declared P roclaimed
Offenders , effective steps should be taken to apprehend and prosecut e such
accused under Section 174A IPC.
31. Mr. Dayan Krishnan and Mr. N. Hariharan , Senior Advocate s have
given their valuable suggestions. M s. Sonia Mathur, learned standing
counsel for CBI and Mr. Ra jiv K. Garg, Advocate have also given the
suggestions. Learned counsels for the parties have also given their
suggestions.
32. Vide order dated 07th March, 2014, Mr. S.S. Rathi, who was then
posted in Delhi State Legal Service s Authority (DSLSA) and had done
extensive research on the subject , was requested to submit his research
papers. Mr. Rathi submitted his research papers on 07th May, 2014 along
with the draft of the suggested guidelines . As the matter progressed, Mr.
Rathi submitted his first report which was considered by Delhi Police as
well as CBI and after thorough deliberations, he submitted his final report
before this Court whereupon Delhi Police as well as CBI were requested to
give their suggestions.
33. Mr. Rathi in his report has dealt with the provi sions relating to the
declaration of a Proclaimed Offender at the stage of investigation as well as
trial and post conviction. However, this Court is dealing with the declaration
of an accused as a Proclaimed Offender during the trial and would be
2021:DHC:60
CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 16 of 17 restrict ing the discussion to the provisions relating to the trial.
34. This Court is of the view that declaring a person as a Proclaimed
Offender leads to a se rious offence under Section 174 A IPC which is
punishable for a period upto 3 or 7 years. It affects the life and liberty of a
person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it is necessary to
ensure th at the process under Section s 82 and 83 CrPC is not issued in a
routine manner and due process of law should be followed. The second
important aspect is that once a person has been declared as a Proclaimed
Offender , it is the duty of the State to make all reasonable efforts to arrest
him and attach his properties as well as launc h prosecution under Section
174A IPC.
35. This Court is of the view that guideline s are necessary to be laid down
by this Court in this regard. M r. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate; Mr.
Rajshekhar Rao, Advocate and Prof. (Dr.) G.S. Bajpai, Professor of
Criminology and Criminal Justice, National Law University, Delhi are
appointed as Amicus Curiae in addition to Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior
Advocate to assist this Court in framing the se guidelines. The Registry shall
send the digitalized copy of entire record to the learned Amici Curiae within
one week. The learned Amici Curiae shall file brief note of submissions
within a period of four weeks.
36. Commissioner of Delhi Police and Director, CBI are directed to form
an Internal Committee in their respective organizations to formulate the
suggestions with respect to the issues concerning the Proclaime d Offender s.
The Committee shall inter alia consist of officers heading the Policy
Division as also those having experience of investigating inter-country
offences and also the concerned Standing Counsels appearing for the
2021:DHC:60
CRL.M.C. 5328/2013 & CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 Page 17 of 17 respective agencies before this C ourt. The report of the Committee be filed
under the signatures of Commissioner of Delhi Police and Director, CBI
respectively within a period of four weeks.
37. List for further hearing as part-heard matter s on 16th February, 202 1.
38. The order be uploaded on t he website of this Court forthwith.

J.R. MIDHA , J.
JANUARY 07, 2021
ak/dk/ds
2021:DHC:60