Analysis of Section 174A IPC

An Analysis of Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code: A Standalone Offence Amidst Procedural Complexities

Introduction

Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 25 of 2005), effective from June 23, 2006 (Mr. Prakash Chimanlal Sheth v. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Gordhanbhai Kathiria And Anr., Calcutta HC 2025), criminalizes the failure to appear at a specified place and time pursuant to a proclamation issued under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). This provision was enacted primarily as a deterrent against abscondence and to curb the consequent delays in the administration of criminal justice (Ms. Daevi Prakash Sheth v. Heena Ramesh Kumar Kathiria, Calcutta HC 2025). This article seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis of Section 174A IPC, delving into its nature as a standalone offence, the procedural intricacies surrounding its invocation, particularly in relation to Section 195 CrPC, and the grounds upon which proceedings under this section may be quashed by the High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers.

Legislative Framework and Purpose of Section 174A IPC

Section 174A IPC is structured in two parts. The first part penalizes non-appearance in response to a proclamation under Section 82(1) CrPC with imprisonment up to three years or with fine or with both. The second part imposes a more stringent punishment – imprisonment up to seven years and a fine – where a declaration has been made under Section 82(4) CrPC pronouncing the person a "proclaimed offender" for failing to appear despite a proclamation in relation to certain serious offences specified therein (Sanjay Bhandari v. State (Nct Of Delhi), Delhi HC 2018).

The legislative intent, as observed by the Calcutta High Court, was to create a deterrent for individuals who evade justice by absconding (Mr. Prakash Chimanlal Sheth, Calcutta HC 2025). Section 174A IPC operates in conjunction with Section 82 CrPC, which lays down the procedure for issuing a proclamation against a person for whom a warrant has been issued and who has absconded or is concealing himself to evade execution of the warrant. It is crucial to distinguish Section 174A IPC from Section 174 IPC. While Section 174 IPC deals with intentional omission to attend in obedience to a summons, notice, order, or proclamation from any public servant, Section 174A IPC specifically targets non-appearance pursuant to a proclamation under Section 82(1) CrPC concerning an accused person (Sanjay Bhandari, Delhi HC 2018). The scope of Section 174 IPC is broader, covering various types of legal commands and persons (including witnesses), whereas Section 174A IPC is specific to accused persons subject to a Section 82 CrPC proclamation.

The Nature of Offence under Section 174A IPC: A Standalone Provision

A significant jurisprudential development concerning Section 174A IPC is its recognition as a standalone, independent, and substantive offence. The Supreme Court of India in Daljit Singh v. The State of Haryana (SC 2025) unequivocally held that "Section 174A IPC is an independent, substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation under Section 82, Cr.P.C. is extinguished." The Court further clarified that it is a "stand-alone offence." This implies that proceedings under Section 174A IPC are not necessarily co-terminus with the main criminal case in connection with which the proclamation under Section 82 CrPC was issued.

The Supreme Court in Daljit Singh (SC 2025) also noted that if the accused is subsequently acquitted in the main offence, it would be permissible for the court seized of the trial under Section 174A IPC to take note of such acquittal and treat it as a ground to close the proceedings under Section 174A IPC, should such a prayer be made and circumstances warrant. This view finds support in earlier High Court decisions, such as the Delhi High Court's stance in Mohd Jamal @ Ranjha v. State (Delhi HC 2013), where a conviction under Section 174A IPC was discussed even after acquittal in the main case, though the trial procedure was found flawed in that specific instance.

Procedural Conundrum: Section 195 CrPC and Cognizance of Section 174A IPC

A contentious issue surrounding Section 174A IPC is its interplay with Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC. This provision bars a court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC (which form part of Chapter X of the IPC, "Of Contempts of the Lawful Authority of Public Servants," where Section 174A also resides) except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.

There are divergent judicial views on the applicability of Section 195 CrPC to Section 174A IPC:

  • View 1: Section 195 CrPC is not applicable. The Delhi High Court in Maneesh Goomer v. State (Delhi HC 2012) held that Section 195 CrPC was not correspondingly amended to include Section 174A IPC when the latter was introduced. Crucially, Section 174A IPC was made a cognizable offence, allowing police to register an FIR and file a charge-sheet, unlike most other offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC which are non-cognizable. This reasoning was noted with approval by the Supreme Court in Daljit Singh (SC 2025) while affirming the standalone nature of Section 174A IPC.
  • View 2: Section 195 CrPC is applicable or its principles should extend. Conversely, some High Courts have opined that the procedural safeguards of Section 195 CrPC should apply. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Meena Pothireddy v. State of Haryana and Another (P&H HC 2025) suggested that a Magistrate, being a public servant, intending to initiate proceedings under Section 174A IPC, should file a written complaint before the competent court, rather than merely directing the police to register an FIR. The Allahabad High Court in Arvind Singh v. State Of U.P. (Allahabad HC 2024) argued that any legislative ambiguity or oversight in not explicitly excluding Section 174A IPC from Section 195 CrPC should accrue to the benefit of the accused, emphasizing the paramountcy of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The general principle of strict adherence to Section 195 CrPC for offences covered therein was also highlighted by the Supreme Court in C. Muniappan And Others v. State Of Tamil Nadu (2010 SCC 9 567), albeit in the context of Section 188 IPC.

This divergence leads to practical differences in how proceedings under Section 174A IPC are initiated – either through an FIR by the police (if cognizable and Section 195 CrPC is deemed inapplicable) or through a private complaint by the concerned public servant/court (if Section 195 CrPC is deemed applicable).

Quashing of Proceedings under Section 174A IPC

The High Courts frequently exercise their inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings under Section 174A IPC to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice (Inder Mohan Goswami And Another v. State Of Uttaranchal And Others, 2008 SCC CRI 1 259). Several grounds have emerged from judicial pronouncements for such quashing:

  • Flawed Proclamation Process: If the mandatory procedures under Section 82 CrPC for issuing a proclamation are not strictly adhered to (e.g., improper service, lack of recorded satisfaction by the court before issuance), the very foundation for invoking Section 174A IPC is vitiated, leading to quashing (Tulsa Devi Tripathi v. State Of Haryana And Another, P&H HC 2025; Maneesh Goomer, Delhi HC 2012).
  • Compromise or Resolution in the Main Case: A significant number of cases where Section 174A IPC proceedings are quashed arise from situations where the main underlying offence, often under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, or other private/compoundable disputes, has been compromised, settled, or withdrawn. Courts have consistently held that continuation of Section 174A IPC proceedings in such scenarios would be an abuse of process (Microqual Techno Limited And Others v. State Of Haryana And Another, P&H HC 2015; Murli Jha v. State Of Haryana, P&H HC 2021; Ram Kumar Rana v. State Of Haryana And Another, P&H HC 2021; Abhishek Lodha v. State Of Haryana, P&H HC 2024; Omkar v. State Of Haryana And Another, P&H HC 2019).
  • Acquittal in the Main Offence: As indicated in Daljit Singh (SC 2025), acquittal in the main offence can be a valid ground for the court trying the Section 174A IPC case to draw the proceedings to a close.
  • Lack of Intentional Avoidance or Non-Service: If the accused demonstrates that summons or proclamation was not duly served, or they were unaware of the proceedings, negating intentional avoidance, courts may quash the Section 174A IPC proceedings (Microqual Techno Limited, P&H HC 2015).
  • Appearance of the Accused: When the accused subsequently appears before the court, cooperates with the proceedings, and especially if the main matter is resolved, a lenient view may be taken towards quashing the Section 174A IPC charge (Maneesh Goomer, Delhi HC 2012).

Section 174A IPC and Bail

The status of being a proclaimed offender, which is a precursor to invoking Section 174A IPC, has significant implications for bail. The Supreme Court in Lavesh v. State (Nct Of Delhi) (2012 SCC 8 730) reiterated the principle that individuals declared as proclaimed offenders under Section 82 CrPC are generally not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. This principle logically extends to persons facing proceedings under Section 174A IPC due to their failure to appear post-proclamation. Furthermore, the conduct of an accused, such as repeated abscondence even after the registration of an FIR under Section 174A IPC, can disentitle them from any relief, including bail (Mohammad Ikram v. State Of Haryana, P&H HC 2022).

Conclusion

Section 174A IPC serves as an important tool in the criminal justice system to ensure the presence of accused persons and to penalize deliberate evasion of court proceedings. The Supreme Court's clarification in Daljit Singh (SC 2025) regarding its standalone nature provides significant jurisprudential clarity. However, the procedural ambiguity concerning the applicability of Section 195 CrPC remains a point of contention among High Courts, warranting either legislative intervention or a definitive pronouncement from the apex court to ensure uniformity in its application across the country.

The High Courts, through their judicious exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC, continue to play a crucial role in preventing the misuse of Section 174A IPC, particularly where the underlying disputes are settled or where the proclamation process itself is flawed. This balances the State's interest in prosecuting absconders with the individual's right to be protected from vexatious or unwarranted criminal proceedings. The evolving jurisprudence around Section 174A IPC reflects the ongoing effort to strike a balance between enforcing compliance with judicial processes and safeguarding fundamental rights.

References