Suraj vs State Of Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of decision: May 22, 2026

+ CRL.M.C. 6957/2022, CRL.M.A. 26936/2022

SURAJ .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Jyotika Kalra, Mr. Inderdeep
Singh and Mr. Vishal Baliyan,
Advs.

Versus

STATE OF GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP with Ms.
Niketa Manish, Adv. with SI-
Satish Kumar, PS: Prashant Vihar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
J U D G M E N T ( ORAL )

1. By virtue of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( Cr.P.C. ), the petitioner seeks the following
reliefs:
“1. Admit this present petition and quash the Impugned
Order dated. 21.09.2022 passed by Ld. Sh. Kautuk Vats
MM-04(North) Rohini Courts, New Delhi in the Cr. case
No. 6755/2017.
2. Quash the FIR no. 0564/2022 registered U/s 174A
IPC at PS Prashant Vihar registered on 15.10.2022.
3. Return of the FDR forfeited vide order dated
30/07/2019.”

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to give up
prayer no.3 and restricts his arguments qua prayer nos.1 & 2 only.
Regarding them, the learned counsel drawn attention of this Court to
CRL.M.C. 6957/2022 Page 1 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:12:35

th
Statement of Process Server ASI Sanjay, No.8720/DAP, 7 Battalion,
Malviya Nagar, Delhi, wherein it is recorded as under:
“On SA

I had received process U/s 82 CrPC against the accused
Suraj 5/0 sh. Ramsiya,R/o H. No. 70/1/2, Marbel Market,
Mangol Pur Kalan, Delhi. I had gone for execution of
process U/s 82,CrPC at the above stated address of accused
on 20/10/19. However,' the accused was not found there and
the said premises was not completely traceable. The H.No.
70/1/2, which is mentioned above is the Khasra Number.
The proclamation of process U/s 82CrPC was publicly read
in the said area. A copy of the said process was pasted
outside the address given on the process and a copy thereon
was also pasted outside the court premises. My report on
the process U/s 82 CrPC is Ex. X1, which bears my
signatures at point A.”

3. Placing reliance thereon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that learned Trial Court declared the petitioner as absconder though the
statement of the process server itself showed that the address of the
petitioner was not traceable. Moreover, he submits that there is neither any
photograph nor any proof or affidavit of the process server to show that
the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was executed in accordance with
law. The learned counsel, thus, submits that the declaration of the
petitioner as absconder was/ is in complete disregard to the guidelines laid
down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sunil Tyagi vs. State
(NCT of Delhi):(2021) SCC Online Del 3597 and, therefore , the
consequential penal liability thereof under Section 174A IPC would not be

attracted.
4. Thereafter, placing reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble the
Supreme Court in Daljit Singh vs. State of Haryana and Another : 2025
CRL.M.C. 6957/2022 Page 2 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:12:35

SCC Online SC 1 learned counsel submits that since an offence under
Section 174A IPC is an independent offence which may survive
notwithstanding the extinguishment of proceedings under Section 82
Cr.P.C., he seeks indulgence of this Court under its inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.0564/2022 registered at
PS Prashant Vihar.

5. Per contra , learned APP for State disputes the assertions made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the factual position involved.
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the
learned APP for the State and perused the materials on record.
7. Issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and declaring a person
as proclaimed absconder/ offender has serious repercussions as it may lead
to deprivation of personal liberty of a person, as also attachment of the
properties and in few cases initiation of proceedings under Section 174A
IPC against such person. Alas, this is one such case. Section 82(1) Cr.P.C.
provides that publication of proclamation must be preceded by issuance of
a warrant and the satisfaction of the Court after there are “reasons to
believe” that the person against whom the warrant has been issued is
absconding or concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed.
This itself suggests that the Court has to tread with caution and care, less
as a routine affair. The “reasons” therein connote something more than
prima facie reflecting that the Court is convinced of there being sufficient
material(s) on record and substantive to call for issuance of process under
Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. It is, after all, not a mundane issuance of notice
simpliciter.
8. Interestingly, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sunil Tyagi
CRL.M.C. 6957/2022 Page 3 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:12:35

(supra) while dealing with the said issue of issuance of process under
Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. laid down certain guidelines, which, for ease of
reference, are reproduced as under:-
“Guidelines for issuance of proclamation
442. Proclamation only on deliberate concealment— The
police has to submit a report before the court that the
person against whom the warrant was issued, has
absconded or is concealing himself.
443. Concealment has to be deliberate— The concealment
has to be deliberate for the purpose of avoiding arrest. The
mere fact that the police could not find the accused, is not
enough.
444. Mere non-availability at address is not sufficient—
Mere non-availability at the address is not sufficient unless
the concealment is deliberate to avoid arrest. A person who
had gone abroad before the issue of the warrant of arrest
cannot be said to be absconding or concealing. However, if
the accused left India before proclamation but continues to
remain outside India with a view to defeat or delay the
execution of the warrant, he shall be taken to be
absconding.
445. Affidavit/ status report of the police-The police officer
shall file an affidavit/status report to disclose the addresses
and phone numbers/e-mail addresses (if available) of the
accused against whom the warrants had been issued and the
reasons for inability to secure the presence of the accused
before the court.
446. Prerequisites to the issuance of a proclamation-Prior
to issuance of a proclamation under Section 82(1)CrPC,
(i) The police officer may file an affidavit/status
report disclosing:
(a) All available addresses and phone
numbers/e-mail addresses (if available) of the
person against whom the warrant has been
issued along with proof of the said addresses,
phone numbers/e-mail addresses and any other
details available in the information sheet with
CRL.M.C. 6957/2022 Page 4 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:12:35

underlying documents demonstrating the same.
(b) Particulars of proof of service of the
arrest warrant at the said address; (i) by post;
(ii) by hand; (iii) mobile number; (iv) e-mail
address (if any); and (v) service on a family
member/neighbour along with credible proof of
the same.
(c) In the event warrant has been affixed on
a conspicuous part of the house where the
person ordinarily resides, town/ village/ court
house, the police officer must annex a picture
showing that warrant has been affixed in such
manner along with his affidavit. The picture
must be taken in a manner that makes it clear
to the court that the warrant has in fact, been
affixed at the said house.
(d) Reasons for inability of the police officer
in securing presence of the person against
whom warrant is issued.
(ii) The court must pass an order dealing with the
contents of the affidavit/status report and reasons
given by the police officer for arriving at a
conclusion that the person has absconded or is
concealing’ himself or reasons for inability of the
officer in securing presence of the person.
447. Court to record satisfaction-Under Section 82CrPC,
the court issuing proclamation shall record to its
satisfaction that the accused had absconded or concealed
himself. The expression “reason to believe” in Section
82CrPC means that the court has to be subjectively satisfied
from the materials before it that the person has absconded
or has concealed.
448. Court to examine executing officer-Before issuing a
proclamation, the court shall examine the officer with
respect to the measures taken by him to execute the
warrants.
449. Issuance of arrest warrant a precondition-Issuance of
an arrest warrant and the accused found absconding, are
CRL.M.C. 6957/2022 Page 5 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:12:35

preconditions for issuing proclamation.
450. NBW and Section 82CrPC not to be issued together-
Simultaneous issuance of both the processes, namely,
warrant of arrest and proclamation is ex facie
contradictory, since it is only after the former that the latter
can be issued where the person concerned has absconded or
is hiding.
451. Prerequisites to the publication of a proclamation
under Section 82(2)(ii)CrPC-Prior to publication under
Section 82(2)(ii)CrPC the police officer may be mandatorily
required to file an affidavit disclosing: A picture showing
that proclamation has been affixed in a conspicuous place
of the house where the person resides. The picture must be
taken in a manner that makes it clear to the court that the
proclamation has in fact, been affixed at the said house; The
court must pass an order dealing with the contents of the
affidavit and statement of the process server along with its
reasons for directing publication under Section 82(2)(ii).
452. Publication by all three modes essential-Publication
by all three modes, namely; (i) public reading in some
conspicuous place of the town/village in such person
ordinarily resides; (ii) affixation at some conspicuous part
of the house or homestead; and (iii) affixation at some
conspicuous part of the court house are mandatory under
Section 82(2) CrPC. The failure to comply with all the three
modes of publication is to be considered invalid publication,
according to law as the three sub-clauses (a) to (c) are
conjunctive and not disjunctive.
453. Section 82CrPC to be read as a whole-The three
clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 82(2)(i)CrPC are
conjunctive and not disjunctive. The factum of valid
publication depends on the satisfaction of each of these
clauses. Clause (ii) of sub-Section (2) is optional; it is not
an alternative to clause (i). The latter clause is mandatory.
454. Photograph of the affixation of proclamation-Prior to
the publication under Section 82(2)(i)CrPC, the police shall
file an affidavit along with the photographs of the affixation
of proclamation on the conspicuous part of the resident of
CRL.M.C. 6957/2022 Page 6 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:12:35

the accused. The police officer shall fill and submit
performa in the format of Annexure C before the court at
the stage of seeking proclamation.
455. Upon publication of the proclamation under Sections
82/ 83CrPC, copy of that newspaper be sent by the
newspaper agency by post to the address of the accused as
being done in Civil matters under Order 5 Rule 10 CPC.”

9. As per records, in the present case, the learned Trial Court vide
order dated 30.07.2019, initiated Section 82 Cr.P.C. proceeding against the
petitioner recording as under:
“NBW against accused received back unexecuted with
report that address could not be located. Perusal of record
shows that same address is furnished in bail bonds. It seems
that accused is deliberately evading the service.
Notice to surety received back with report “incomplete
address”. Surety bonds stand forfeited.
Therefore, issue process U/s 82 CrPC against the accused
with directions to process server to appear in person for
recording his statement qua proceedings U/s 82 CrPC on
NDOH.
Issue NBWs against the surety to be executed through SHO
concerned, returnable on NDOH.”
10. The aforesaid reveals that it was duly recorded by the learned Trial
Court that the NBW against the petitioner had been received back
unexecuted with the report that the address could not be located. However,
in the same breath the learned Trial Court also proceeded to observe that
the petitioner was deliberately evading service. On a bare glance, this
Court is unable to find any “ reasons ” for the learned Trial Court to
proceed to do so in terms of Section 82 Cr.P.C., and that too without
taking recourse to any/ other alternative mode(s) to serve the petitioner
CRL.M.C. 6957/2022 Page 7 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:12:35

herein. Mere failure to locate the address of the petitioner cannot, by itself,
lead to an inference that the petitioner was intentionally evading the
process of law. Moreover , the statement of the Process Server recorded on
21.09.2022 also reveals that the premises of the petitioner was “ not
completely traceable ”.
11. All this creates a doubt over the learned Trial Court proceeding to
issue process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. More so,
since in such a situation, it cannot be conclusively affirmed if the
petitioner was aware that he was wanted in the present case. Therefore, the
question of his intentionally and deliberately evading the process, does not
arise, which is a pre-requisite under Section 82 Cr. P.C.
12. In fact, this Court while going through the records before the
learned Trial Court finds that there is no document therein showing
compliance of mandatory requirements governing execution and
publication of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Also, neither there is any
photograph of the affixation nor any affidavit, as mandated by this Court
in Sunil Tyagi (supra) .
13. In view thereof, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
order dated 30.07.2019 initiating Section 82 Cr.P.C. proceeding against
the petitioner and the consequent impugned order dated 21.09.2022
declaring the petitioner as absconder/ proclaimed offender cannot be
sustained. Consequently, FIR No.0564/2022 dated 15.10.2022 registered
under Section 174A IPC at PS Prashant Vihar is liable to be quashed.
14. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the
learned MM-04 (North), Rohini Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Case
No.6755/2017 is set aside and FIR No.0564/2022 dated 15.10.2022
CRL.M.C. 6957/2022 Page 8 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:12:35

registered under Section 174A IPC at PS Prashant Vihar and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.
15. The present petition along with the pending application is disposed
of in terms of the aforesaid.

SAURABH BANERJEE, J
MAY 22, 2026/Ab/GA


CRL.M.C. 6957/2022 Page 9 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:12:35