Proclaimed absconders are ineligible to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing of criminal proceedings.

The applicants (Rahul Sharma and his wife Bhumika Sharma) sought to quash a charge-sheet and summoning order arising from Case Crime No. 579 of 2023 under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that Rahul Sharma, an Assistant Manager at South Indian Bank, conspired to misappropriate approximately ₹28.07 crore from M/s Associated Electronics Research Foundation (AERF) by manipulating banking systems and diverted funds to accounts belonging to his wife and mother.

Following the FIR, the applicants left India for the UAE on December 4, 2023.

Due to their non-appearance despite warrants, they were declared "proclaimed absconders" under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C.

The present application was filed through Rahul Sharma’s sister while the applicants remained abroad.

1. Whether a criminal application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. (equivalent to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) is maintainable when filed by or on behalf of persons declared as proclaimed absconders.

2. Whether the High Court, in its inherent jurisdiction, can quash the charge-sheet and proceedings at a pre-trial stage when disputed questions of fact exist.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), noting its equivalence to the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

The Court applied the principle from Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra that an absconder in conflict with the law deserves no concession.

Following Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, the Court affirmed that individuals defying warrants and proclamations are generally ineligible for extraordinary relief.

Regarding quashing, the Court invoked Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and CBI v. Aryan Singh, which mandate that the High Court must not conduct a "mini-trial" or appreciate evidence at the threshold stage, but only determine if a prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed.

The Court reasoned that the applicants' conduct—leaving the country immediately after the discovery of the fraud and remaining abroad despite impounded passports and judicial proclamations—constituted a deliberate attempt to flout Indian law.

Because the applicants had not challenged the orders under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. or surrendered to the Court, they could not invoke extraordinary jurisdiction while evading the legal process.

On the merits, the Court found that the allegations involving the misappropriation of ₹28.07 crore and the routing of funds through multiple accounts constituted a prima facie case.

The applicants' defenses—including claims of lack of authority and false implication—were deemed disputed questions of fact that require a full trial and cannot be adjudicated in a quashing petition.

The Court declined to quash the proceedings, holding that the material on record prima facie disclosed the commission of cognizable offences; consequently, the application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. was dismissed.