Delhi High Court: Declaring an Accused “Proclaimed Offender” Without Proper Inquiry Violates Law

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court set aside the order declaring petitioner Hitesh Kumar as a “Proclaimed Offender” under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), finding that the trial court acted mechanically without satisfying the mandatory preconditions under law. The Court held that a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC must be issued only when the Magistrate records cogent reasons for believing that the accused is absconding or concealing himself to evade arrest. Mere non-service of warrants or non-residence at a particular address does not justify such an order.

Background:

1. FIR No. 43/2019 was registered against Hitesh Kumar and others under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 34 IPC on the complaint that they sold mortgaged properties despite encumbrances.
2. The trial court, on applications by the Investigating Officer (IO), issued Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) against Hitesh Kumar in 2019 and again in May 2022.
3. On failure to execute the warrants, process under Section 82 CrPC was issued on 10.05.2022.
4. Proclamation was published in newspapers, and on 02.08.2022, Hitesh Kumar was declared a “Proclaimed Offender.”
5. The petitioner challenged the proclamation order, arguing that he had not been living at the said address for over a decade, and no genuine attempt was made to trace his correct residence before declaring him absconding.

Court’s Observations:

1. Non-application of mind: The trial court issued the proclamation mechanically without recording satisfaction or reasons to believe that the petitioner had absconded or concealed himself.
2. Improper service: The IO’s own report revealed that the petitioner had not lived at the address for nearly 10 years, yet efforts to locate his current residence were not made.
3. Procedural safeguards under Section 82 CrPC: The Court emphasized that issuing proclamation and attachment are exceptional measures requiring strict compliance with statutory procedure.
4. Reliance on precedents:
5. Dalmia Resorts International Pvt. Ltd. v. Deepak Gupta (2002 SCC OnLine Del 538) — Proclamation is an exceptional remedy, not to be issued routinely.
6. Mohd. Haris Usmani v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2021 SCC OnLine Del 5335) — Orders under Section 82 CrPC entail serious consequences and must reflect judicial satisfaction.
7. Baljeet Kaur v. State of NCT of Delhi (Crl. M.C. 1039/2023) — Absconding implies deliberate evasion, not mere non-service.
8. Violation of personal liberty: The Court stressed that liberty is a fundamental right, and coercive processes like NBWs and proclamation orders should be used cautiously.

Decision:

The Court held that the trial court’s order declaring Hitesh Kumar a Proclaimed Offender lacked reasoning, failed to meet the statutory standard of “reasons to believe,” and was therefore invalid.

The impugned order dated 02.08.2022 was set aside.

Legal Provisions Discussed

1. Section 82, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Proclamation for person absconding.
2. Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Offences relating to cheating, forgery, and conspiracy.
3. Article 21, Constitution of India – Protection of life and personal liberty.

Citation: 2025:DHC:CRLMC:4580

Case: Hitesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Reserved on: 6 August 2025

Pronounced on: 31 October 2025

Crl. M.C.: 4580/2024 & Crl. M.A. 17244/2024 (Stay)