Delhi District Court
State vs Shankar Lal on 7 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -05 SOUTH WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
Digitally
signed by
RISHABH
RISHABH
State Vs. : Shankar Lal
KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.08.07
14:29:49
+0530
FIR No : 817/2021
U/s : 174A IPC
P.S. : Vikas Puri
JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 12055/23 2. Date of commission of offence : 28.10.2021 3. Date of institution of the case : 20.10.2023 4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name and parentage of accused : Shankar Lal s/o Sultan Singh
6. Offenses complained or proved : 174A IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 22.07.2025
9. Final order : Convicted
10. Date of final order : 07.08.2025
1. The accused namely, Shankar Lal is facing trial for offence u/s 174A IPC. The present case FIR came to be registered against accused pursuant to order dated 28.10.2021 passed by the Court of Ms. Priya Jhangu the then MM, South-West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in case vide CC No. 6315/18 titled Pawan Express Logistics State Vs. Shankar Lal FIR No: 817/21 U/s : 174A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 1 Vs. Shankar Transport Company as the accused was declared an absconder during the course of the proceedings of the aforesaid case vide order dated 28.10.2021. After the registration of present FIR, the efforts were made for tracing out the accused, but all in vain. The accused filed an application for surrender in the present FIR and pursuant to order dated 25.08.2023 passed in the aforesaid application, the permission was also granted to the IO for interrogation of the accused and thereafter, he was formally arrested in the present case. Thereafter, the investigation was conducted in the present case, upon completion of which the present charge-sheet came to be filed against accused for offence u/s 174A IPC.
2. The cognizance of the offence was taken and the matter was then proceeded for trial against accused. The copy of charge- sheet was supplied to accused in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. The charge for offence U/s 174 IPC was also framed against accused on 29.02.2024. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
3. In order to prove allegations against accused, one witness was examined by prosecution.
PW-1 W/SI Shweta deposed that on 18.12.2021 the case was marked to her for registration of FIR and on 27.12.2021, she got registered the FIR Ex. PW1/A in compliance of the directions issued by the concerned Ld. Court in its order dated 28.10.2021. She further deposed that thereafter she conducted various raids at the office of accused at Ludhiana, Punjab and despite best efforts, State Vs. Shankar Lal FIR No: 817/21 U/s : 174A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 2 the accused could not be traced out. She further deposed that the complainant also submitted one mobile phone number of accused before the Court and after obtaining the same, she sent a request letter for seeking the CDR and CAF from the concerned Nodal authorities. She further deposed that on 15.08.2023, after obtaining the location of the aforesaid mobile phone number, she along with HC Subey Singh went to Ludhiana for tracing the accused but the accused could not be found. She further deposed that on 25.08.2023, the accused surrendered before the Court and she formally arrested him vide memo Ex. PW 1/B and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW 1/C, after which the accused was sent to JC. During her cross-examination, she admitted that soon after registration of FIR, she deputed Ct. Baljeet to raid the address mentioned in the complaint case. She admitted that the accused was not operating his business at the address mentioned in the complaint and after local inquiry, Ct. Baljeet found that the said premises were left by accused since more than two years back. She could not state whether the address of accused as mentioned in the complaint was rented or self-owned. She admitted that after registration of FIR, she did not record statement of any local person from the vicinity of the premises. She could not state whether accused has left the premises mentioned in the complaint case in year 2017.
4. Vide statement u/s 294 Cr. PC, accused also admitted formal documents in the nature of DD no. 61 A dated 27.12.2023, FIR and certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which are Ex. AD1 to Ex. AD3 respectively, and in view of such admission of documents by accused, the examination of formal witnesses State Vs. Shankar Lal FIR No: 817/21 U/s : 174A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 3 pertaining to such documents was dispensed with.
This is the entire evidence on record.
5. Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. PC was also recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused were put to him. The accused controverted and denied the allegations leveled against him and opted to lead any evidence in his defense.
6. In the defense evidence of accused, accused has opted to examine himself as the only defense witness.
The testimony of accused Shankar Lal as DW-1 reads as under :-
The accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and after cognizance in CC no. 6315/18, the summons was sent to his old address at 3507, Heera Nagar Gali no. 4 Ludhiana, Punjab and he had shifted from the said address to Plot no. 38 Transport Nagar Ludhiana, Punjab in year 2017 itself. He deposed that due to the aforesaid reasons, the processes issued by the Court including proclamation u/s 82 Cr. PC were sent to his old address and same were never received by him nor he was in the knowledge regarding the issuance of said processes including proclamation proceedings. He further deposed that his proprietorship firm in the name of Shankar Transport Company was also run from his address at Plot no. 38 Transport Nagar Punjab in year 2017 and produced the copy of registration certificate of his business as Ex. DW1/A. He further deposed that he had already settled the proceedings of the complaint case u/s 138 NI Act by making the payment of Rs. 3.5 lacs in favour of complainant. During his cross-examination, he State Vs. Shankar Lal FIR No: 817/21 U/s : 174A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 4 stated that he never attended the court dates in connection with the case u/s 138 NI Act. He volunteered that he was not in knowledge of said case proceedings. He denied that he has intentionally avoided the summons, warrants and proclamation u/s 82 Cr. PC which was duly served on his address.
7. After conclusion of defense evidence, the final arguments were advanced by the prosecution and defense.
8. I have carefully gone through the record and evidence. The allegations against accused in the present case relates to offence u/s 174A IPC. More specifically, it is in the allegations that during the course of proceedings of case titled Pawan Express Logistics Vs. Shankar Transport Company CC No. 6315/18, the accused Shankar Lal failed to appear before the Court despite issuance of notices, warrants and proclamation u/s 82 Cr. PC, due to which he was declared an absconder vide order dated 28.10.2021, thereby constituting an offence punishable u/s 174A IPC.
9. It is an undisputed fact that during the course of proceedings in case titled Pawan Express Logistics Vs. Shankar Transport Company CC No. 6315/18, the accused Shankar Lal was declared an absconder vide order dated 28.10.2021. Further, the prosecution has examined PW-1 W/SI Shweta to bring home the case under section 174A IPC against accused. The said PW deposed that on 25.08.2023, pursuant to the application for surrender-cum-bail moved on behalf of accused, the accused appeared before the Court and upon an application filed by her, she was permitted to interrogate the accused and thereafter, she State Vs. Shankar Lal FIR No: 817/21 U/s : 174A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 5 formally arrested accused in the present case. This witness was duly examined, cross examined and discharged.
10. Ld. APP for State argued that the prosecution has been able to prove the offence of 174A IPC against accused. Whereas, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the accused did not deliberately avoid the processes of this Court and he could not appear before the Court as he was not within the knowledge of the proceedings of aforesaid complaint case u/s 138 NI Act. More specifically, it has been argued on behalf of accused that the accused had shifted from the address mentioned in the complaint of case u/s 138 NI Act i.e. Plot no. 3507 Street No. 4 Heera Nagar, Opposite Transport Nagar, Ludhiana way back in year 2017 and has been running his business from his new address i.e. Plot no. 38, Transport Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab since year 2017 itself, therefore, for want of service of summons, warrants and proclamation u/s 82 Cr. PC upon the accused, he was unable to appear before the Court during the aforesaid case proceedings, thus, there was no intention on his part to deliberately evade the process of law or to intentionally disobey the directions qua his appearance despite the proclamation proceedings u/s 82 Cr. PC.
11. It is an undisputed fact that as per section 82(3) Cr. PC, the proclamation issued against accused u/s 82 (2) Cr. PC is the conclusive evidence regarding the fulfillment of requirements under section 82(2) Cr. PC. In other words, a sacrocanse has been given to the proceedings u/s 82 Cr. PC having issued by the competent court of law and such proceedings are held to be a conclusive piece of evidence for establishing the fact of fulfillment State Vs. Shankar Lal FIR No: 817/21 U/s : 174A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 6 of the conditions as stipulated under section 82 (2) Cr. PC regarding the execution of the said proceedings. In this regard one must advert to Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act which lays down the definition of conclusive proof. On bare glance of the aforesaid provision, it appears that the term "conclusive proof" is distinct from the terms "may presume" and "shall presume" in the sense that for disproving the latter two facts that is "may presumed" and "shall presume", the evidence in rebuttal thereof is required to be given by the party and whereas, once a fact is considered as a "conclusive proof" of other, the evidence for disproving the same shall not be allowed. As section 82 (3) Cr. PC. clearly lays down that a statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on the specified day in manner provided u/s 82 (2) (i) Cr. PC, therefore same shall be considered as the conclusive evidence regarding the fulfillment of the requirements detailed under section 82 (2) Cr. PC.
12. In the present case, the accused was declared as an absconder during the course of proceedings in the CC no.6315/18 vide order dated 28.10.2021 and the concerned Ld. Court had in fact passed the said order after attaining the satisfaction qua the fulfillment of requirements of section 82 (2) (i) Cr. PC., therefore, the said order of the Court is a conclusive proof and the defense cannot be permitted to re-agitate the fact that he was wrongly declared as an absconder on the ground that he had already shifted from the given address way back in the year 2017. Assumingly, that the contentions raised on behalf of accused are permissible to be raised under law, still the said contentions does State Vs. Shankar Lal FIR No: 817/21 U/s : 174A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 7 not hold any ground on the merits. It has been asserted on behalf of accused that accused was never served with summons, warrants or proclamation u/s 82 Cr. PC. during the course of proceedings of CC no. 6315/18 as his given address mentioned in the complaint case was vacated/ left by him in year 2017 only and since then, he has been running his firm at his new address at Plot no. 38 Transport Nagar, Ludhiana Punjab. In support of such assertions, the accused has examined himself as DW-1, reiterating the above-mentioned stance. Further, the accused has also placed on record the copy of one registration certificate of his company (as Ex. DW 1/A,) reflecting that his company was being run from the address at Plot no. 38 Transport Nagar Ludhiana, Punjab from 01.07.2017 onwards. Herein, it is pertinent to state that during the course of proceedings of the present case, the case file pertaining to CC no. 6315/18 titled Pawan Express Logistics Vs. Shankar Transport Company was requisitioned from the record room by the Ld. Predecessor Court and same has also been thoroughly scrutinized by this Court. On careful scrutiny of the record of said case file, it appears that the cognizance for offence u/s 138 NI Act was taken against accused in the above said case on 07.02.2018 and thereafter, from that date onwards, various summons was issued against the accused and on 03.04.2019, the summons so sent to accused at the given address i.e. Plot no. 3507 Street no. 4 Heera Nagar, Opposite Transport Nagar, Ludhiana were received back with the report that the service was refused by the accused, thus constraining the concerned Ld. Court to issue the coercive process in the nature of bailable warrants against accused. It is apparent from the record of the aforesaid case file that thereafter on 06.07.2019, the NBWs against the accused which remained State Vs. Shankar Lal FIR No: 817/21 U/s : 174A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 8 unexecuted as on 26.09.2019 i.e the date when the proceedings u/s 82 Cr. PC came to be issued against accused. The perusal of order dated 26.09.2019 passed in the aforesaid case would further reflect that the issuance of proclamation u/s 82 Cr. PC against accused was made on the reasoning that the accused had filed an application for cancellation of NBWs against him during the intervening dates from 06.07.2019 to 26.09.2019 and thus, he was well within the knowledge of the aforesaid case proceedings but he failed to appear before the Court despite having such knowledge. Further, on careful perusal of the aforesaid case file of CC no. 6315/18, it further emerges that an application dated 24.09.2019 for seeking cancellation of NBWs issued against accused on 06.07.2019 also came to be filed before the concerned Court on 24.09.2019 itself, therefore, it clearly reflects that the proceedings of the aforesaid case vide CC no. 3615/18 were well within the knowledge of the accused.
13. The further scrutiny of the aforesaid case file also suggests that the bailable warrants issued against accused on 03.04.2019 were also executed on 20.06.2019 and at the time of such execution, one of the partner of accused namely, Subhash Chander had furnished the surety for the appearance of accused on the next date therein i.e. 06.07.2019. Even though, the order dated 06.07.2019 details that the bailable warrants so issued against accused on 03.04.2019 remained unexecuted but the report and the record speaks otherwise, due to which it can well be inferred in the said order dated 06.07.2019, the fact of non- execution of bailable warrants has been wrongly mentioned due to inadvertence or oversight. Be the case as it may, the record of the State Vs. Shankar Lal FIR No: 817/21 U/s : 174A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 9 proceedings which were conducted in CC no. 6315/18 sufficiently reflect that the bailable warrants issued against accused on 03.04.2019 were duly executed on 20.06.2019 but the accused failed to appear before the concerned Ld. Court on 06.07.2019, thereby leading to issuance of NBWs against him. Further, the accused after acquiring the knowledge qua issuance of NBWs against him even moved an application for seeking its cancellation on 24.09.2019 and after due consideration of the said facts, the proclamation u/s 82 Cr. PC. came to be issued against accused vide order dated 26.06.2019 despite execution of which, the accused failed to appear before the Ld. Court concerned and he was eventually declared as an absconder vide order dated 28.10.2021 and consequently, the present case FIR for offence u/s 174 A IPC was also registered against the accused. The careful perusal of order dated 28.10.2021 along with the statement of concerned process server HC Vijay Pal would reflect that the process u/s 82 Cr. PC which was issued against accused on 26.09.2019 was duly executed and the requirements laid down u/s 82 (2) (i) Cr. PC were also fulfilled at the time of the said execution of process, therefore, the stand taken by accused that he was not within the knowledge of the process of Court including the process u/s 82 Cr. PC issued against him appears to be nothing but a bundle of lies and therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of accused are rejected.
14. In the considered view of this Court, the prosecution has been able to prove the offence u/s 174A against the accused Shankar Lal. The onus rested upon accused to repel the case of prosecution by bringing on record the reliable evidences in support State Vs. Shankar Lal FIR No: 817/21 U/s : 174A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 10 of his assertions but the accused has miserably failed to do so. On the contrary, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts that accused failed to appear before the court despite due execution of proclamation u/s 82 Cr. PC which was issued against him on 26.09.2019 during the course of proceedings of CC no. 6315/18 titled Pawan Express Logistics vs Shanker Transport Company and therefore, the accused is hereby held guilty for the offence u/s 174A IPC.
15. Thus, in view of aforesaid discussion, the accused Shankar Lal is hereby convicted for offence u/s 174A IPC.
16. Let the convict be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court on 07.08.2025.
(Rishabh Kapoor) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05 (South-West)/Dwarka 07.08.2025 State Vs. Shankar Lal FIR No: 817/21 U/s : 174A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 11