Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order following the judgment in Maneesh Goomer (supra) observed and held that offence under Section 174A of the IPC gives rise to an independent cause of action and, therefore, the said offence cannot be made part of prosecution and tried together by way of supplementary chargesheet as the same would be against provisions of Sections 218 to 220 of the CrPC. It was observed by the learned Session Judge that the since the offence under Section 174A of the IPC is distinct to the offence in the chargesheet earlier filed, any such charge under Section 174A of the IPC will have to be tried separately as per provisions under Section 218 of the Cr.P.C. It was further observed that since the Section 174A of the IPC This is a digitally signed order.

"23. In the present case, when the petitioners did not put appearance deliberately and were declared absconders, supplementary charge-sheet for commission of offence under Section 174A IPC was filed by the Investigating Agency. Offence under Section 174A IPC, though independent in nature is an off-shoot of the initial charge-sheet pending trial before the CBI Court. No separate investigation is required to be conducted as the orders of the Court declaring the petitioners to be Proclaimed Offenders are part of the record in the main challan. Object and purpose to incorporate Section 174A IPC primarily is to ensure that the accused / suspects do not scuttle investigation or trial by remaining absconding without valid or sufficient reasons. In such a scenario, when the suspects or accused abscond, possibility of valuable evidence to be washed away cannot be ruled out. Since CBI had jurisdiction to investigate the main offence, cognizance by the Court for commission of offence under Section 174A IPC, its fall out, cannot be termed illegal or without jurisdiction.

8. In the aforesaid judgment, the challenge before this Court was with respect to the legality and correctness of an order passed by learned Special Judge, CBI whereby charges under Section 120B read with Section 174A of the IPC and Section 174A of the IPC were framed against them. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner therein that Section 174A of the IPC being an independent offence should not have been clubbed with the charges framed as per the main chargesheet.

11. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no dispute that Section 174A of the IPC is a separate offence but the same can be tried together with This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2024 at 23:46:31 other offences for which chargesheet already stands filed. This has been the consistent view taken by this Court as pointed out hereinabove. In Maneesh Goomer (supra), it is pertinent to note that there was no FIR in existence and the complaint case had already been withdrawn on account of compromise. Since the offence under Section 174A of the IPC was a distinct offence, therefore, the Coordinate Bench held that FIR can be registered separately. The judgment does not say that a separate FIR has to be registered as a rule. The facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable.