This commentary addresses the Supreme Court of India’s recent decision in Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana (2025 INSC 21). The Appellant, Daljit Singh, faced proceedings under various provisions, including being declared a Proclaimed Offender under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”). The primary question centered on whether the status of a Proclaimed Offender (PO) could subsist despite an eventual acquittal in the underlying offence, and whether Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”)—which criminalizes non-appearance in response to a proclamation—remains valid even after the proclamation ceases to stand.

The dispute arose from a contractual matter involving stone crushing and subsequent cheque transactions that led to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Appellant challenged the continued prosecution under Section 174A IPC and the subsistence of the PO status after being acquitted in the underlying offence. Ultimately, the Court addressed several key legal issues, including the interplay between Section 82 Cr.P.C. proclamations and the offence prescribed under Section 174A IPC.

The parties to the case were:

• Daljit Singh (Appellant): The businessman/contractor originally accused in the cheque dishonor proceedings and subsequently declared as a Proclaimed Offender.
• State of Haryana & Another (Respondents): The prosecuting state authority and the original complainant who initiated proceedings based on dishonored cheques.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s refusal to quash the Complaint Case, Summoning Order, and subsequent Proclaimed Offender order against Daljit Singh. The Court concluded:

1. Once an accused is acquitted in the underlying case for which he was required to appear, there remains no further necessity for that person’s presence in connection with the original offence.
2. Nonetheless, Section 174A IPC is an independent substantive offence for failure to respond to a valid proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Its validity does not automatically terminate if the underlying case is dismissed or if the person is acquitted.
3. In the specific circumstances of this case—where the original dispute dated back to 2010 and the complainant had already received the agreed monetary amounts—the Supreme Court decided that continuing prosecution under Section 174A would serve no meaningful purpose. All criminal proceedings relating to Daljit Singh’s Proclaimed Offender status and FIR under Section 174A IPC were thus directed to be closed.
4. Daljit Singh’s status as a Proclaimed Offender was formally quashed, given his acquittal and the settlement of the financial dispute at the core of the matter.

The Court drew extensively on past rulings interpreting the concept of proclamations and absconding. Notable citations include:

• Kartarey v. State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 172: Defined “absconder” as including persons hiding in their own residences to evade arrest.
• Jayendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 7 SCC 104: Interpreted the term “absconding” by referencing multiple dictionary sources, emphasizing that absconding indicates intent to avoid legal process.
• Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel (2008) 4 SCC 649: Clarified that the primary purpose of issuing and enforcing Section 82 Cr.P.C. is to ensure the accused’s appearance before the court. Once that object is fulfilled (e.g., the accused surrenders or is no longer needed), the attachments and proclamations must typically be withdrawn.
• Raghubir Singh v. State Of U.P. (1972) 3 SCC 79 and Matru v. State of U.P. (1971) 2 SCC 75: Both highlight that, while absconding may be relevant, it is seldom conclusive proof of guilt. Innocent individuals may also evade arrest out of fear.
• State v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar (2000) 10 SCC 438: Emphasized that Section 82 proceedings are permissible only if a valid warrant led to the inability to arrest the accused in the first place.

The Court’s reasoning centered on two key questions:

1. Whether Proclaimed Offender status can subsist if the accused is ultimately acquitted.
   The Court reasoned that, once acquitted, there is no legal necessity to compel the accused’s presence for the underlying offence. Accordingly, an accused’s Proclaimed Offender status should not continue if the proceedings that prompted the proclamation have ended in an acquittal or closure.
2. Whether Section 174A IPC is dependent on the continued subsistence of the proclamation.
   The Court clarified that Section 174A IPC is a stand-alone offence triggered at the moment an accused fails to appear in compliance with a court-issued proclamation. Even though it arises from a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the offence under Section 174A IPC can endure as an independent charge or proceeding, regardless of eventual changes to the underlying offence. However, in practical terms, if the underlying case ceases to exist because the accused has been acquitted, courts may choose to terminate the Section 174A proceedings in the interests of justice and efficiency.

The Supreme Court thus noted that Section 82 Cr.P.C. and Section 174A IPC work in tandem, but the latter remains a separate offence for failing to appear despite being duly proclaimed. Yet, in this particular case, the factual background—acquittal of the accused and settlement of the monetary claims—rendered further prosecution unnecessary.

This decision establishes a clear precedent on two fronts:

• Courts must discontinue Proclaimed Offender status if the requisite proceedings end in acquittal or have no further need for the accused’s appearance.
• Section 174A IPC represents an autonomous violation for someone who chooses to ignore a valid proclamation, although the continuation of such proceedings may be rendered moot if the base offence is resolved and the court sees no practical reason to pursue the stand-alone offence further.

Legal practitioners should note that individuals can still face prosecution for failing to appear before the issuance of a fresh warrant under Section 82 Cr.P.C. In circumstances analogous to the present case—where the main offence is dismissed or the accused is acquitted—courts may exercise discretion to end the Section 174A case.

Below is a simplified explanation of the key legal provisions and terms:

• Section 82 Cr.P.C. (Proclamation of person absconding): If a person willfully avoids arrest after a court issues a warrant, the court can declare them a “proclaimed offender” if the offence is grave or proclaim them under Section 82 generally. This compels their appearance and may lead to attachment of property under Sections 83–90 of the Cr.P.C.
• Proclaimed Offender Status: A judicial label attached to those who evade or hide from lawful process in particularly serious cases. Being declared a proclaimed offender can lead to further criminal liability and property attachment.
• Section 174A IPC: A stand-alone offence introduced through a 2005 amendment to penalize non-appearance after issuance of a proclamation. Punishment can extend to three years of imprisonment or fines (for failing to appear under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C.), and up to seven years if the person is declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82(4).
• Acquittal in the Underlying Offence: When the accused is found not guilty in the original case, the reason for holding that person under legal compulsion (such as a proclamation) generally dissolves, unless separate proceedings must continue for other legal grounds.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana clarifies that even though Section 174A IPC stands independently as an offence for ignoring a court’s proclamation, once the underlying offence is resolved in an acquittal—especially where civil or financial restitution has already been made—courts may quash the entire set of criminal proceedings, including those under Section 174A, in the interest of justice. By explaining that proclamations serve the primary purpose of securing appearances of accused individuals and not punishing them indiscriminately, this decision helps reinforce fundamental principles of proportionality and fairness in criminal procedure.

Practitioners should carefully examine whether further pursuit of charges under Section 174A IPC is warranted once an accused has been acquitted of the main charges, or if the acquittal effectively renders continuation of the ancillary prosecution unnecessary. This judgment offers clarity on balancing interests of justice, ensuring that while non-appearance cannot be condoned, an acquittal in the original offence may legitimately bring the entire matter to closure.