2017 (9) TMI 1967 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking quashing of order where petitioner was declared as proclaimed person - HELD THAT - The petitioner could not appear before the trial Court as he was stated to have not been served at the address where he was residing. After the passing of the impugned order declaring him as a proclaimed person he had surrendered before the trial Court on 29.03.2017 and was ordered to be released on bail. In such circumstances especially when the petitioner has duly surrendered before the trial Court continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of the process of Court. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues: Quashing of order declaring petitioner as proclaimed person and FIR under Section 174-A IPC

In the judgment delivered by Mr. Anupinder Singh Grewal, J., the petitioner sought the quashing of an order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala, declaring him as a proclaimed person and directing the police to register an FIR under Section 174-A IPC against him. The petitioner contended that he could not appear before the trial court as he was not served at his residing address. However, upon learning about the order, he surrendered before the trial court on 29.03.2017 and was subsequently released on bail. The petitioner's counsel relied on a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of the Court in the case of "Raj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana" to support his argument. The Court noted that the petitioner had surrendered before the trial court after being declared as a proclaimed person, and the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of the court's process. Citing the precedent in the case of Raj Kumar, where a similar situation led to the quashing of proceedings, the Court set aside the order dated 30.08.2016 and quashed the FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC against the petitioner at Police Station Parao, District Ambala Cantt., along with all consequential proceedings arising from it.