Delhi District Court
Mulakh Raj Ahuja vs State on 5 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03, SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No.: 380/2025
CNR No. DLST01-012261-2025
Mulakh Raj Ahuja,
S/o Late Shri Ramji Dass Ahuja,
R/o H.No. C-2/80, Ground Floor,
BPTP Parklands, Sector 85,
Faridabad, Haryana
.......Revisionist
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi.
.......Respondent
Date of Institution : 07.08.2025
Date on which order was reserved : 02.02.2026
Date on which order pronounced : 05.02.2026
ORDER
1. The present revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 19.07.2025 passed by Ld. JMFC-06, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CR No. 32445/2024, FIR No. 197/2024, PS Hauz Khas, vide which the Ld. Trial Court had dismissed the application of the revisionist/ applicant under Section 239 Cr.PC and had directed to charge the accused / revisionist for the commission of offence punishable under Section 174-A IPC.
2. The revisionist/ accused has challenged the impugned order and averred that the Ld. JMFC had dismissed the Criminal Revision No.: 380/2025 Mulakh Raj Ahuja Vs State page no. 1 of 12 application of the revisionist under Section 239 Cr.PC seeking discharge and the said impugned order contained legal errors warranting the interference by this court. It is averred that as per the allegations, the revisionist was declared as absconder on 30.11.2017 in CT case No. 465266/2016 filed under Section 138 of the NI Act and the proclamation was allegedly executed on 31.07.2017. It is further averred that as per the allegations, an application on behalf of the complainant in CT case No. 465266/2016 was moved before the Ld. Trial Court to initiate proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC against the revisionist on 27.01.2024 and after that application, the FIR bearing no 197/2024 dated 08.04.2024 PS Hauz Khas was registered i.e., after about six years of the alleged proclamation proceedings.
2.1. It is further averred that the revisionist had sought discharge through his application firstly on the ground that cognizance was barred under Section 468 Cr.PC as limitation period had expired on 30.11.2020. Secondly, on the ground that proclamation was invalid as it was affixed at an auctioned factory unconnected with the revisionist, owned by one Manish Gupta as per the report of the previous bailable warrant and NBW reports dated 28.04.2017, 21.06.2017 and 31.07.2017.
2.2. It is further averred that as per the mandate of Section 468 Cr.PC, the period cognizance after three years for commission of offence punishable under Section 174-A IPC had expired on 30.11.2020 and Ld. Trial Court took the cognizance beyond three years period of limitation. It Criminal Revision No.: 380/2025 Mulakh Raj Ahuja Vs State page no. 2 of 12 is further averred that the proclamation proceedings issued by Ld. Trial Court was also not duly executed and as per the mandate of Section 84 Cr.PC, the proclamation was required to be affixed at the place of the accused, where the accused ordinarily resides, however in the present case, the same was affixed at an auctioned factory unconnected with the petitioner and owned by one Mr. Manish Gupta.
2.3. It is further averred that the impugned order of Ld. Trial Court dated 19.07.2025 is liable to be set aside and revisionist / accused is entitled to be discharged from the present case in CR No. 32445/2024 (FIR No. 197/2024 PS Hauz Khas) titled as State Vs Mulakh Raj Ahuja.
3. The State/ respondent opted not to file formal reply to the revision petition and opted to address arguments straightaway.
4. Arguments heard on behalf of the revisionist as well as on behalf of the Respondent/ State.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the revisionist/ accused that the revisionist/ accused has challenged the impugned order dated 19.07.2025 vide which the charge under Section 174-A IPC is directed to be framed against the accused. It is further submitted that as per the allegations, the accused was wanted in CT case no. 1082/2015 titled as Small Farmers Agri Business Consortium Vs M S Magnifico Foods Pvt. Ltd. and ors. and was allegedly declared as proclaimed person on 30.11.2017, however, in pursuance to the said proclamation, the FIR was registered on 08.04.2024. It is further argued that there was the delay in Criminal Revision No.: 380/2025 Mulakh Raj Ahuja Vs State page no. 3 of 12 registration of the FIR and in lodging the complaint by the complainant to the police. Hence, the same was barred as per Section 468 Cr.PC. It is further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has not considered the aspect of delay in lodging the FIR No. 197/2024, PS Hauz Khas. It is further submitted that the proclamation proceedings were also not duly executed and Ld. Trial Court had not considered the same. It is further submitted that the accused / revisionist is entitled to be discharged from the present case bearing CR No. 32445/2024 (FIR No. 197/2024 PS Hauz Khas) titled as State Vs Mulakh Raj Ahuja.
5.1. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgement titled as Amandeep Gill and ors. Vs State (Government of NCT of Delhi) in Crl. MC No. 5219/2017 and Cr. MA No. 20512/2017 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and case titled as Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs State of Uttar Pradesh of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Crl. Appeal No. 472/2021.
6. It is argued on behalf of the State by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the revision petition is pre-mature and charges in the present case is not yet formally framed by the Ld. Trial Court in pursuance to the impugned order dated 19.07.2025.
6.1. It is further argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the provision of the limitation as provided under Section 468 Cr.PC are not applicable in cases of lodging complaint and lodging FIR. It is further argued that the defence as taken by the Criminal Revision No.: 380/2025 Mulakh Raj Ahuja Vs State page no. 4 of 12 revisionist/ accused are the matter of the trial and the same can only be decided after leading the evidence.
7. Heard the submissions, perused the record of the revision petition, record of the trial court, the impugned order dated 19.07.2025 and the case law as relied upon by both the parties.
8. The impugned order dated 19.07.2025 is reproduced as under:-
"CR Cases 32445/2024STATE VS MULAKH RAJ AHUJA FIR No. 197/2024 PS Hauz Khas 19.07.2025 Present: Sh. Siddhartha Srivastava, Ld. APP for the State.
Ld. Counsel for accused with accused.
It is the case of the prosecution that vide order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Ld. MM-01, (South) NI Act, the accused was declared as proclaimed absconder. Thereafter, the present FIR was registered against the accused.
Ld. APP for the State argued that the accused had intentionally evaded the process of law before the concerned Court and concealed himself so that the warrants could not be executed. He further submitted that all the conditions mentioned in section 82 (2) Cr.P.C. was complied with and the accused was declared proclaimed absconder in accordance with the law. He further argued that the material placed on record prima-facie discloses the commission of offence.
Ld. counsel for the accused submitted that the accused was declared PO in CT Cases 1082/2015 465266/2016 "Small Farmers' Agribusiness Consortium (SFAC) Vs MS Magnifico Foods Pvt Ltd Anr". He argued that in the aforementioned case he has never received any Criminal Revision No.: 380/2025 Mulakh Raj Ahuja Vs State page no. 5 of 12 summon or warrants and all the service was done on the address mentioned of the company and the said company was not operated. He further argued that in the abovesaid case accused was declared as PO on 30.11.2017 but the FIR was registered on 08.04.2024. He further argued that the delay in lodging of FIR is also a ground of discharge. He further argued that materials placed on record by the prosecution does not disclose a prima-facie case against the accused and accused needs to be discharged.
Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to enunciate the law relating to the discharge of accused in a warrant cases:
Section 239: When accused shall be discharged - If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be ground-less, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.
In the case titled as "Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal" (1979) 3 SCC 4", the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the certain guidelines in in regard to the exercise of the power of discharging the accused:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima-fa-cie case against the accused has been made out.
(2) Where the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but no grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 Criminal Revision No.: 380/2025 Mulakh Raj Ahuja Vs State page no. 6 of 12 the Judge who under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the judge should make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
It is settled law that in framing of charge during a criminal trial that is instituted upon a police report, the Court is required to confine its attention to documents referred to under Section 173 CrPC (reference may be made to the case of State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar, (1995) 4 SCC 181). At the stage of framing of charge, the Court needs to be only convinced that there is a prima facie case made out for proceeding further with the case.
In the case at hand, the arguments raised by the Ld. Counsel for accused that delay in lodging the FIR is also a ground of discharge, does not hold any ground as it is a settled law that delay in lodging the FIR is not a ground of discharge. Further, the arguments raised by the Ld. Counsel for accused that the service in the abovesaid case was not done in accordance with the law, can only be proved during the trial by leading the evidence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and material placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that there is prima-facie case made out against the accused u/s 174A IPC.
List for framing of charge on 18.08.2025.
(xxxxxxx) JMFC-06/ South/ Saket, Delhi / 19.07.2025 "
9. The revisionist / accused has challenged the impugned order firstly on the ground that the cognizance was barred under Section 468 Cr.PC as maximum period of limitation had expired on 30.11.2020 as the revisionist / accused was declared as proclaimed person on 30.11.2017 and secondly Criminal Revision No.: 380/2025 Mulakh Raj Ahuja Vs State page no. 7 of 12 on the ground that the proclamation in CT case No. 465266/2016 (Complaint under Section 138 NI Act) was not duly executed as per the mandate of Section 82 Cr.PC.
10.Section 174-A IPC is reproduced as under :-
Section 174-A: Non-appearance in response to a proclamation under section 82 of Act 2 of 1974.--
Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub-section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and where a declaration has been made under sub- section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
11.Section 468 Cr.PC:-
Section 468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.-
(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub - section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be ._
(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;
(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with Criminal Revision No.: 380/2025 Mulakh Raj Ahuja Vs State page no. 8 of 12 imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years (3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offence which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.
12.Section 469 Cr.PC:-
469.- Commencement of the period of limitation .-
(1) The period of limitation, in relation to an offence, shall commence -
(a) on the date of the offence, or,
(b) where the commission of offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier, or
(c) where it is not known by whom the offence was committed, the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the police officer making investigation into the offence, whichever is earlier.
(2) In computing the said period, the day from which such period is to be computed shall be excluded.
13.Section 82 (2) Cr.PC is reproduced as under:-
Criminal Revision No.: 380/2025 Mulakh Raj Ahuja Vs State page no. 9 of 12 Section 82 (2).- The proclamation shall be published as follows:--
(i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides;
(b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village;
(c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house;
(ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.
14.As per the impugned order dated 19.07.2025, the accused/ revisionist was declared as proclaimed person in CT cases No. 1082/2015 465266/2016 "Small Farmers Agribusiness Consortium (SFAC) Vs MS Megnifico Foods Pvt. Limited and ors." on 30.11.2017 and a FIR in pursuance to the said proclamation dated 30.11.2017 was registered on 08.04.2024 i.e., after more than six years of the declaration of the proclamation against the revisionist/ accused.
15.The proclamation was executed against the revisionist / accused under sub Section (1) of Section 82 of Cr.PC and maximum sentence is provided as three years or with fine or both as per Section 174-A of the IPC.
Criminal Revision No.: 380/2025 Mulakh Raj Ahuja Vs State page no. 10 of 12
16.As per the Section 468 (1) (c) of Cr.PC, the maximum period of limitation for taking the cognizance for commission of offence punishable under Section 174-A IPC as mentioned above, extend upto three years.
17. In the instant case bearing FIR No. 197/2024 PS Hauz Khas, with respect to which the impugned order dated 19.07.2025 has been challenged was registered on 08.04.2024. It is an admitted fact that in the complaint case bearing CT cases No. 1082/2015 465266/2016, Small Farmers Agribusiness Consortium Vs MS Megnifico Foods Pvt. Ltd. and anr., the revisionist/ accused was declared as proclaimed person on 30.11.2017 on the report of the police officer / executing officer who had executed the proclamation against the accused / revisionist. Meaning thereby, the police as well as complainant in CT cases No. 1082/2015 465266/2016, Small Farmers Agribusiness Consortium Vs MS Megnifico Foods Pvt. Ltd. and anr. were within the knowledge about the fact of the identity of the accused/ revisionist, the date of the offence i.e., 30.11.2017 when the accused/ revisionist was declared as proclaimed person in terms of the Section 469 of the Cr.PC.
17.1. However, the FIR was registered on 08.04.2024 i.e., beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 468 (2) (c) Cr.PC. Hence, the order of cognizance dated 22.11.2024 of the Ld. Trial Court of JMFC-06, South District Saket Courts, New Delhi regarding the commission of offence punishable under Section 174-A IPC with respect to the final report, Criminal Revision No.: 380/2025 Mulakh Raj Ahuja Vs State page no. 11 of 12 filed under Section 173 Cr.PC, was bad in law and was barred by the limitation.
18. In view of the same, the impugned order dated 19.07.2025 on the point of charge while directing to frame the charge against the accused/ revisionist under Section 174-A IPC is also bad in law and is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.07.2025 is hereby set aside and accused/ revisionist Mulakh Raj Ahuja is hereby discharged from the case FIR No. 197/2024 PS Hauz Khas (CR No. 32445/2024) for commission of offence punishable under Section 174-A IPC.
19.The present revision petition is accordingly disposed off.
20.The Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith copy of this order to the Ld. Trial Court.
21.Copy of the order be given dasti.
22.File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court, On 05th February, 2026 (Ravindra Kumar Pandey) ASJ:03/South/Saket Courts/New Delhi.
Criminal Revision No.: 380/2025 Mulakh Raj Ahuja Vs State page no. 12 of 12