Delhi District Court
M/S Micro Computers World vs . Jaspreet Singh on 11 December, 2013
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (NI ACT)-01,
CENTRAL: ROOM NO.-356, TIS HAZARI COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
M/s Micro Computers World Vs. Jaspreet Singh
CC No.4732/10
11.12.2013
Present: Ld. APP for the state.
SI Gulshan Kumar from Police Headquarters.
A report from the Police Headquarters has been received stating that they have issued an
Addendum to the earlier circular on the issue of use of Section-174A IPC. The Addendum reads
as under:
ADD E NDUM
Subject :- Regarding use of 174-A IPC against criminals evading arrest.
*****
In continuation to this Hdqrs. Circular No.03, issued vide No.3290-3340/SO/DCP/C&R, dated 04.03.11, the matter has been further examined at this Headquarters and it has been decided to add below stated point
(iii) after point (ii) in the said circular:
(iii) However, this will not apply to a complaint case. If a person is declared proclaimed Offender by a court in a complaint case like the case under Indian Negotiable Instrument Act etc, and where no previous FIR exists, a fresh FIR u/s 174 - A IPC should be registered when an information or order from the same court who made the said declaration is received.
This addendum is issued with the approval of Spl.C.P./Law & Order, Delhi.
(A. K. SINGH) IPS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE P & I: PHQ: DELHI.
The above Addendum shows that the Police Headquarters has taken a step forward in a M/s Micro Computers World Vs. Jaspreet Singh CC No.4732/10 1 good direction. And for this, I appreciate the steps taken by the Police Headquarters.
However, Ld. APP has pointed out that the Addendum has used an expression "proclaimed offender" and that in view of Section-82(4) Cr.P.C., an accused can be declared as proclaimed offender only in serious offences which are mentioned in the said provision. He further submits that Section-174A IPC provides two types of punishments, i.e. one is for Proclaimed Offender having 7 years punishment and the second is for 3 years punishment for such Persons against whom proclamation has been issued. He also submits that Section-138 NI Act offence is not covered under Section-82(4) Cr.P.C. and, therefore, court cannot declare any such accused as proclaimed offender. Ld. APP submits that Police Headquarters should issue clarifications otherwise in future some police station may not register any case with the reasoning that accused has not been declared proclaimed offender whereas the circular has used this expression.
I have considered the submissions. Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana had have certain occasion to deal with this issue. The judgment is titled as Rahul Dutta Vs. State of Haryana dated 12.12.2011 CRM-M-34328-2011 (O&M). For better appreciation, some portion of one judgment may be quoted.
"The offences mentioned in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. are of recurring nature. All the persons, who are absconding or concealing themselves to evade execution of warrants of arrest, could be proclaimed persons but they could be declared a "proclaimed offender" only under the provisions of the IPC which are mentioned in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. There is stark distinction between a proclaimed person and a proclaimed offender and for that reason, there is a difference of punishment provided under Section 174-A IPC as it provides imprisonment which may extend upto three years or with fine or with both regarding a person who has been proclaimed in terms of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. and the imprisonment which may extend upto seven years and also with fine in respect of a person who is declared a "proclaimed offender" under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. "
In such circumstances, I consider that Police Headquarters should issue the required M/s Micro Computers World Vs. Jaspreet Singh CC No.4732/10 2 clarification.
It further appears that Subordinate Police Officials do require guidance of their Senior Police Officials on the issue pertaining to procedure to be adopted while registering the FIR, investigating the matter, citing the name of witnesses, filing of Challan etc. Ld. APP submits that sometimes it so happen that a police official while registering an FIR cites the name of judge as a complainant/informant in the FIR whereas the judge had passed the order while discharging his judicial function. He further submits that sometimes such judges passing directions/orders regarding completion of proceedings U/s 82 Cr.P.C. whereupon FIR is to be registered are also being cited as a witness by the police officials. He submits that in such circumstances, a Hon'ble Judge cannot be treated as complainant or informant or cannot be cited as a witness and that normally court staff who sends the copy of order or the police official who takes the dasti order, if any, from the court should be treated as complainant/informant. He also submits that even if police officials want to establish the record in prosecution of accused for an offence U/s 174A IPC, they should cite the court staff as a witness who can produce the record and not the Hon'ble Judge. He also submits that this offence is a document based offence and the prime emphasis of police officials should be on arresting the accused. He then submits that even sometimes during the investigation for an offence U/s 174A IPC, the police official asks for issuance of NBW from the Ilaka Magistrate which ultimately may result in further issuance of Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. creating a vicious circle. He submits that this is not only appropriate (as in a cognizable non bailable case, police officials are entitled to arrest the accused without warrant) but also the same is undesirable considering the burden on the system. Ld. APP further submits that sometimes police officials make application U/s 195 Cr.P.C. requesting the court to file the complaint for an offence U/s 174A IPC even when they have already registered an FIR for that offence. He submits that it is done under a wrong impression that court complaint is also necessary in addition as the FIR was lodged for an incident occurred during the court proceeding. He submits that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Maneesh Goomer Vs. State Crl. M.C. No.4208/11 has already clarified this position. Ld. APP submits that the higher police authorities should be requested to look into the matter and should prepare a clear guidelines for the benefit of their subordinates and for ultimate benefit to the system itself.
M/s Micro Computers World Vs. Jaspreet Singh CC No.4732/10 3 I am of the view that submissions made by the Ld. APP require consideration of the higher authorities in the Police Department. The appropriate authority in the Police Headquarters is requested to look into the matter and take some steps thereupon.
SI Gulshan Kumar submits that they will be taking some steps in this direction and will file a report within one month. Let this matter be adjourned to 13.01.2014 for further consideration.
A copy of this order be given dasti to the Gulshan Kumar.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.12.2013 R
M/s Micro Computers World Vs. Jaspreet Singh CC No.4732/10 4