New Delhi, February 26 A Delhi court has overturned a trial court order declaring a man a fugitive in a 2015 case, stating that the mandatory provisions under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not strictly followed.
Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) pertains to the issuance of a written summons requiring a fugitive to appear.
Additional Sessions Judge Anuj Agrawal allowed the criminal revision petition filed by Jagdish Kumar against a magistrate court order dated March 26, 2024, declaring him a fugitive.
The judge observed that proceedings under Section 82 of the CrPC are "not routine in nature" and carry "serious penal consequences," including attachment of property and exposure to prosecution under Section 174A (non-appearance in response to a summons) of the IPC.
"The court must record its satisfaction that the person against whom a warrant has been issued has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed.
"Such satisfaction must be based on evidence demonstrating due and sincere efforts to execute the process at all known addresses," the court said in its order dated February 17.
The judge noted that non-bailable warrants and summons proceedings were executed only at one address in Vishwakarma Colony, while the chargesheet reflected more than one address of the accused.
"In this case, the absence of attempts to serve at all known addresses strikes at the very root of the summons proceedings.
"Unless it is shown that the accused was duly served or that exhaustive and bona fide efforts were made to execute the warrants at all available addresses and he still could not be apprehended due to deliberate concealment, the drastic step of issuing a summons cannot be sustained," the court observed.
Calling the earlier order "mechanical," the court held that it did not record its satisfaction that the person against whom a warrant has been issued has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed and requires the issuance of a summons.
"The court must apply its judicial mind and record reasons demonstrating compliance with the statutory preconditions before declaring a person a fugitive. The mere repetition of procedural steps without substantive compliance vitiates the proceedings," the judge said.
Holding that the fundamental requirement under Section 82 of the CrPC had not been satisfied, the court said that the declaration of Kumar as a fugitive could not be sustained and overturned the impugned order.