Delhi District Court
State vs Sunil Sharma on 13 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT; DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY: MS. SWATI GUPTA-1
Cr. Case No. 3359/2024
In the matter of :
State Vs. Sunil Sharma
FIR No. 129/2024
PS : Vikas Puri
U/s: 174A IPC
1. CNR No. of the case : DLSW020182612024
2. Date of commission of offence : 16.11.2023
3. Date of institution of the case : 28.03.2024
4. Name of the Complainant : Ld. MM-05, South West Court
No. 9, Dwarka Court Complex,
New Delhi.
5. Name, parentage and address : Sunil Sharma
of accused persons S/o Sh. Gandhi
6. Offence charged : U/s 174A IPC
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
8. Date of final arguments : 09.05.2025
9. Date of judgment : 13.05.2025
10. Final Order : Accused Sunil Sharma S/o Sh.
Gandhi is convicted of the
offence u/s 174A IPC
11. Arguments addressed by : Sh. Digvijay Singh, Ld. APP for
State Vs. Sunil Sharma
PS Vikas Puri
FIR No. 129/2024 Page No.1 of 6
the State.
Sh. Arvind Aggarwal, Ld. LAC
for the accused.
JUDGMENT
1. The present case emanates from directions passed by the Court of Ld. MM-05, SW, Dwarka vide order dated 25.01.2024 for registration of FIR against the accused herein u/s 174A IPC. Pursuing to the same present FIR was registered and charge sheet was filed. Accused was summoned, copy of charge sheet was supplied to him and charge was framed U/s 174A IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. In order to prove the charge, prosecution examined following witnesses:-
2.1 PW-1- Ms. Neha Aggarwal-She is the Ahlmad in the Court of JMFC-05, Dwarka and brought the original file pertaining to FIR No. 198/2018 PS Vikas Puri, wherein the accused was declared absconder. 2.2. PW-2- HC Ravinder- He had registered the FIR and filed the present charge sheet.
2.3. PW-3-HC Rajesh- He is the process server who executed the process U/s 82 Cr. PC against the accused.
3. All the witnesses were cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused. During the testimony of aforesaid witnesses, prosecution has relied upon the following documents (including documents admitted by accused U/s 294 Cr. PC):-
State Vs. Sunil Sharma PS Vikas Puri FIR No. 129/2024 Page No.2 of 6 S. No. Exhibits Documents
1. Ex.PW1/A Statement of HC Rajesh
2. Ex.PW1/B Reply of proceedings, DD entry and copy of (Colly.) the photographs of the summons affixed.
3. Ex. PW2/A Rukka on Court order
4. Ex.PW2/B Application for formal arrest of accused.
5. Ex. PW2/C Disclosure statement
6. Ex. A-1 Copy of Court Order dated 25.01.2024
7. Ex. A-2 Copy of FIR & Certificate U/s 65B of Indian (Colly.) Evidence Act.
8. Ex. A-3 DD No. 117A dated 13.03.2024 and DD No. (Colly.) 78A dated 15.03.2024.
9. Ex. A-4 Court's Order dated 16.11.2023 (Colly.)
10. Ex. A-5 Kalandra dated 28.12.2023 along with arrest (Colly.) memo dated 28.12.2023.
4. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. In his statement u/s. 313 Cr.PC, accused stated that he has been falsely implicated and that he did not remember the date of the Court and his lawyer was not taking his call.
He admitted that he was aware about the pendency of the case in Court. Accused did not choose to lead any evidence and defence evidence was closed.
5. Final arguments heard. Record perused.
State Vs. Sunil Sharma PS Vikas Puri FIR No. 129/2024 Page No.3 of 6
6. In the present case, the allegations against the accused are that he absconded during trial of the case wherein FIR No. 198/18 PS Vikas Puri, titled as State vs. Sunil Sharma. It is alleged that since the accused was concealing himself and was avoiding the execution of warrants, this Court had, by order dated 16.11.2023 declared the accused as an absconder. On the basis of the said allegations, it is alleged that accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 174A of Indian Penal Code.
7. As per Section 174A IPC, to hold a person guilty of the offence mentioned in the provision, the following conditions need to be fulfilled:
(a) Issuance of proclamation u/s 82 Cr. PC by the Court;
(b) Publication of proclamation in accordance with law;
(c) Failure of accused to appear before Court within the period prescribed in the proclamation;
8. In order to prove issuance of proclamation, prosecution has examined PW-1, Ahlmad from the concerned Court from where the proclamation was issued. The said witness produced the original record of FIR No. 198/2018, PS Vikas Puri. Prosecution also examined PW-3 HC Rajesh who was the process server who executed the process U/s 82 Cr. PC. PW-3 has deposed that on 29.05.2023, he was entrusted with the execution of process u/s 82 Cr. PC against the accused herein and that he executed the same. The issuance of proclamation u/s 82 Cr. PC is not challenged by the accused. Thus, it is proved that State Vs. Sunil Sharma PS Vikas Puri FIR No. 129/2024 Page No.4 of 6 proclamation u/s 82 Cr. PC was issued against the accused.
9. As regards publication of proclamation, prosecution has examined PW-3 who has deposed that he went for execution of the process u/s 82 Cr. PC to given address, where he enquired abut the accused. Further, as accused was not found he pasted the copy of process at the said address, took photographs and submitted his report. His report is proved on record as Ex. PW1/B(OSR). There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the process server. The said report was also relied upon by the concerned Court which declared the accused as absconder vide order dated 16.11.2023. There is nothing on record to show that the process U/s 82 Cr. PC was not executed as per law. It is the case of Ld. counsel for accused that process u/s 82 Cr. PC was not executed as per law because there was no videography; no public persons were joined; publication in local newspaper was not made. However, the same are not the requirements of law and do not affect the execution of proclamation u/s 82 Cr. PC. Thus, in my opinion prosecution has proved due execution of process u/s 82 Cr. PC.
10. Lastly, as regards failure of accused to appear before the Court within the prescribed period of proclamation, it is a matter of record that accused had failed to so appear and thus he was declared as an absconder on 16.11.2023, pursuant to execution of process on 29.05.2023. Prosecution has not required to lead separate evidence to this effect. Order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the concerned Court is sufficient to prove the failure on the part of the accused. It may also State Vs. Sunil Sharma PS Vikas Puri FIR No. 129/2024 Page No.5 of 6 be noted that in his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC accused has stated that he was aware about the pending case in Court but he did not remember the date and his lawyer was not taking his call. It is not an excuse for an accused to not appear before the Court merely because he has forgotten about the date of hearing. If he is aware about the date of the case, it is his responsibility to find out the date either from his lawyer or by personally approaching the Court. Thus, even if the accused could not contact his lawyer, it was for him approach the court to find out the NDOH. Thus, it is clear that accused deliberately failed to appear before the Court despite execution of process u/s 82 Cr. PC and he has thus committed an offence punishable u/s 174A IPC.
11. Thus, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, all the ingredients of Section 174A IPC have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, and thus, accused Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Gandhi is convicted for offences made punishable under Section 174A IPC.
12. Let the convict be heard separately on the aspect of sentence.
Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
Digitally signedSWATI by SWATI GUPTA Announced in the open court GUPTA Date: 2025.05.13 17:06:59 +0530 on 13.05.2025.
SWATI GUPTA-01 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (SW) Dwarka Courts:New Delhi State Vs. Sunil Sharma PS Vikas Puri FIR No. 129/2024 Page No.6 of 6