RINKU DHIR SHARMA v. BINDU JAYA SHARMA

2. To avoid any repetition, the facts are being taken from CRM-M-12819- 2025, titled as "Rinku Dhir Sharma vs. Bindu Jaya Sharma."

3. The petition bearing CRM-M-12819-2025 has been filed for setting aside the order dated 05.10.2015 (Annexure P-11) passed in Complaint case dated 14.09.2011 under Sections 494, 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Tripuri District Patiala, whereby the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender.

4. The petition bearing CRM-M-12803-2025 has been preferred for quashing of the complaint case bearing No. COMI-52093 of 2013 (old No. 48/2011) dated 14.09.2011 (Annexure P-1) titled as "Bindu Jaya Sharma vs. Rinku Dhir Sharma," under Sections 494/34 IPC pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 05.10.2015 (Annexure P-11) vide which the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender suffers from material illegality, and is in utter violation to the mandate laid down under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 of BNSS, 2023). It has been further contended that the order declaring the petitioner PO is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as he was not residing in India at that time and rather was in USA, meaning thereby, the said order was passed at his back.

6. Heard.

7. Proclaimed offenders generally cannot contest the quashing of an FIR or the order declaring him PO unless they can demonstrate exceptional circumstances, such as malafide intent from the complainant or lack of awareness of the proceedings. The rationale is, to prevent absconders from circumventing the legal process and to avoid setting a precedent that rewards illegal conduct such as evading trial. As a law abiding citizen, it is required that such individuals to first

2

submit to the jurisdiction of competent court before considering any plea for quashing or other relief. Further time and again the Courts have emphasized that such individuals, who have disengaged themselves from the trial despite having knowledge of the proceedings, are not entitled to seek quashing of the PO order or related criminal proceedings. Entertaining such petitions would, in the court's view, put a premium on illegal conduct and undermine the judicial process.

8. In the case in hand, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 05.10.2015. The complaint in question was filed in 2011, and the petitioner was well aware of its pendency, particularly since his parents were also named as accused in the same matter, though proceedings against them were later quashed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Furthermore, the petitioner visited India in 2014, which clearly indicates that he had ample opportunity to participate in the trial and present his defense before the Trial Court. However, he deliberately chose not to appear and continued to evade the proceedings for a significant period of four years, ultimately leading to his being declared a proclaimed offender in

2015.

9. Furthermore, the petitioner has deliberately delayed the trial for several years. The complaint was filed as far back as 2011, and he was declared a proclaimed offender on 05.10.2015. Yet, he has approached this Court only now in 2025 almost a decade later seeking to challenge the proclamation order on the ground of alleged material illegality. This plea is untenable, especially considering that the petitioner has been residing abroad and has willfully evaded the legal process. His conduct reflects a blatant disregard for the authority of law, and it is imperative that such behavior is addressed with the seriousness it warrants. A firm

3

message must be sent that one cannot flout the court's orders with impunity, and any future disobedience will carry serious consequences.

10. Therefore, the persons who abscond or evade the law after being summoned by the court-pose a serious threat to the justice system and courts have repeatedly emphasized the need to deal with such individuals "with iron hands" to preserve the rule of law and deter others from similar conduct. Proclaimed offenders are fugitives from justice and must be dealt with firmly and without leniency once they are aware of the proceedings pending against them especially when they are residing abroad.

11. In view of the above discussions made and considering the fact that unless the petitioner submits to the jurisdiction of this court the order declaring him Proclaimed offender cannot be set aside and accordingly his second petition bearing CRM-M-12803-2025 seeking quashing of the FIR does not subsist until he regularizes his conduct by appearing before the trail court wherein he is avoiding the proceedings willfully and deliberately.

12. Accordingly, CRM-M-12803-2025 is, hereby, dismissed being not maintainable and CRM-M-12819-2025 is also dismissed being devoid of any merits.

(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)

20.03.2025 JUDGE

sham Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

4