Failure to appear in court an independent offence, SC rules

The Supreme Court has ruled that the offence of ignoring a court-issued proclamation to appear is a “standalone” crime that continues to hold even if the accused is cleared of the charges for which the direction was issued.

Clarifying the scope of the pertinent legal provision, the top court held that the act of non-appearance itself constitutes an offence, irrespective of whether the proclamation is later nullified or the accused is finally acquitted. Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) penalises the offence of failing to respond to a court-issued proclamation. This provision has been replaced with Section 209 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), effective from July 1, 2024.

The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol on Thursday. The court underlined that once an individual fails to appear at the place and time specified in the proclamation issued under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the offence is immediately triggered.

“The very instance at which a person is directed to appear, and he does not do so, this Section comes into play. The instance of non-appearance becomes an infraction of the Section, and therefore, prosecution would be independent of Section 82, CrPC. being in effect,” it held. Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) has been replaced with Section 84 under the Bharatiya Nyay Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Section 174A of IPC was introduced in 2005 to address situations where individuals intentionally evade court proceedings by failing to appear despite a proclamation requiring their attendance. The provision prescribes imprisonment for up to three years or a fine, or both, for non-compliance with a proclamation issued by a court under Section 82(1) of CrPC if the accused does not show up despite repeated summons and warrants. If the individual is declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82(4), the punishment extends to seven years along with a fine.

The bench said that the purpose of these provisions is to ensure accountability and impose penal consequences for defiance of a court order. “The purpose of this Section is to ensure penal consequences for defiance of a court order requiring a person’s presence,” observed the court, adding that the offence under Section 174A is distinct and substantive.

Further, the judgment clarified the relationship between Section 174A of IPC and Section 82 of CrPC. While proceedings under Section 174A of IPC cannot be initiated without a proclamation under Section 82 of CrPC, the offence is not contingent upon the continued existence of the proclamation. “While proceedings under Section 174A IPC cannot be initiated independent of Section 82 CrPC, they can continue if the said proclamation is no longer in effect,” it noted.

At the same time, the court maintained that it would depend on facts of each case for a court to determine whether the proceedings under Section 174 of IPC should continue after an accused is exonerated of the main criminal case. “It would be permissible in law for the court seized of the trial under such offence, to take note of such a development and treat the same as a ground to draw the proceedings to a close, should such a prayer be made and the circumstances of the case so warrant,” it clarified.

Turning to the facts of the present case, the bench dealt with a person who was declared a proclaimed person after failing to appear in connection with a cheque bounce case. While an FIR was registered against him under Section 174A of IPC, he was later acquitted of the cheque bounce charge, and the money in dispute was paid. The court noted that since the original offence no longer required his presence in court, the prosecution under Section 174A of IPC also ought to be closed.

“Given that the original offence pertains to the year 2010 and the money in dispute stands paid, all criminal proceedings, inclusive of the FIR under Section 174A IPC, shall stand closed. The appellant’s status as a ‘proclaimed person’ stands quashed,” the court ordered.