Section 82 CrPC proclamation proceedings cannot rest on warrants issued without valid service of summons.

The petitioners comprised a company engaged in the textile business and its two directors.

The Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board filed a private complaint alleging operation of a garment industry without the requisite consent, in violation of Sections 25, 26 and 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, read with Sections 21, 37 and 39 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

The Trial Court initially issued bailable warrants, which were returned unserved.

Despite the defective service, the Trial Court issued further arrest warrants on 10 April 2024 and subsequently initiated proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, declaring the petitioners absconders and directing issuance of permanent arrest warrants on 10 September 2024.

The petitioners challenged both orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, contending that they had never been validly served with summons or warrants.

The State later conceded that the initial summons had been wrongly routed to Police Station Pithampur instead of Police Station Tukoganj, Indore, corresponding to the petitioners’ recorded address.

1. Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the alternative remedy under Section 70(2) of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation or recall of warrants.

2. Whether the Trial Court could validly initiate proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. and declare the petitioners absconders when the foundational summons and warrants had not been effectively served.

3. Whether the orders dated 10 April 2024 and 10 September 2024 issuing arrest warrants and declaring the petitioners absconders were liable to be quashed.

The Court applied Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, under which interference in ongoing criminal proceedings is exercised sparingly but remains available in cases of patent jurisdictional error, manifest procedural illegality, or violation of natural justice resulting in miscarriage of justice.

Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. requires the Court to have reason to believe that a person against whom a warrant has been issued has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant cannot be executed; such satisfaction must rest on valid prior process and effective service.

Section 70(2) of the Cr.P.C. provides an alternative remedy for cancellation of a warrant, but the existence of such remedy does not bar constitutional intervention where the impugned action is founded on a fundamental procedural defect.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the judgment.

The Court found that the initial summons had been incorrectly sent to Police Station Pithampur rather than Police Station Tukoganj, Indore, and consequently had never been effectively served on the petitioners.

Although the issuance of the initial bailable warrants was not treated as an inherent jurisdictional error, the defective service meant that the petitioners’ subsequent non-appearance could not reasonably establish deliberate evasion or concealment.

Since the statutory “reason to believe” required under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was premised on an invalid procedural foundation, the proclamation and permanent arrest warrants could not be sustained.

The defect was sufficiently fundamental to justify exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 notwithstanding the respondents’ objection concerning the alternative remedy.

The matter was remanded to the Trial Court, and the petitioners were directed to appear before it and participate diligently in the proceedings.

The petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.