Mere non-appearance on dates fixed by court is not sufficient to amount to a ‘reason to believe’ that a person has absconded: Rajasthan High Court

Mere non-appearance on dates fixed by court is not sufficient to amount to a ‘reason to believe’ that a person has absconded: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court passed a judgment on 25-05-2022 in the case of Bhavin Tanwar vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet) No. 3072 of 2022. Dinesh Mehta, J. allowed the petition and remarked that expeditious disposal of cases is necessary but equally necessary is to observe mandate of law including procedural law.


The instant petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 i.e., CrPC, challenging the order passed by the Trial Court whereby the petitioner was declared absconder and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC was initiated.

Counsel for petitioner submitted that without recording its satisfaction about petitioner’s intention to avoid the proceedings or to abscond, the trial Court initiated proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of CrPC and issued standing warrant against the petitioner, ignoring the facts and law involved in the present case.

Counsel for respondents submitted that the petitioner never received any summons issued by the Trial Court and the petitioner, despite residing in Jodhpur, intentionally avoided the service of the summons and, therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is perfectly just and valid.

The Court observed that on perusal of Sections 82 and 83 CrPC, action under Section 82 CrPC is the pre-requisite to proceed under section 83 CrPC. Section 82 CrPC provides the court power to issue a proclamation upon fulfillment of the following conditions

The court relied on judgment Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007) wherein it was observed: “In complaint cases, at the first instance, the court should direct serve of the summons along with the copy of the complaint. If the accused seems to be avoiding the summons, the court, in the second instance, should issue a bailable warrant. In the third instance, when the court is fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the court’s preceding intentionally, the process of issuance of the non bailable warrant should be resorted to. Personal liberty is paramount; therefore, we caution courts at the first and second instance to refrain from issuing non-bailable warrants.”


The Court observed that the Court initiated action under sections 82 and 83 CrPC in the absence of any cogent reason to show that the accused is absconding such that warrant cannot be served. A mere recording a ‘it appears’ that accused has absconded is insufficient to proceed under section 82 CrPC because of the expression “such warrant cannot be executed”. 

The Court noted that the alleged absconding or concealment must be for the purpose of avoiding the warrant. The expression “such warrant cannot be executed” is extremely important because what is required to be ascertained is that the accused is absconding despite being aware of the warrant. In the absence of such a finding, it cannot be said that the accused is dodging or evading the warrant. The Court opined that before issuing standing warrant and initiating proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC, the trial Court is required to record a categorical finding/ satisfaction that despite knowledge of the warrant, the petitioner has avoided appearance in the Court or has evaded the warrant. 

The Court further noted that the endeavor of a Court should be to ensure proper compliance of the statutory provisions and service of the summons as mandated by law. Service of summons is bedrock of principles of natural justice. The Courts should not rush to issue a standing warrant and initiate proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC, unless they are satisfied that the accused is intentionally evading or circumventing the warrants to avoid prosecution.

The Court thus held the present petition is allowed and impugned order dated May 16, 2022, is quashed and set aside.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”


Click here to view complete judgement





Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *