Pranav B Prem

In a recent ruling, the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that the primary aim of Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is to secure the presence of an absconding accused. Once this objective is fulfilled, any subsequent proceedings, including those under Section 83 CrPC for attachment of property, must be withdrawn. The judgment was delivered by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand while hearing a petition challenging the attachment of property under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Gurdeep Singh, faced proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC initiated by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Jaipur, after an FIR was lodged against him for criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC. The petitioner contended that these proceedings were initiated without proper service of summons or warrants for nine years. The trial court, nevertheless, concluded that the petitioner had failed to appear and subsequently ordered the attachment of his property. The petitioner argued that he had no knowledge of the proceedings as the process server's report clearly indicated that he was not residing at the address where the notices were sent. Upon becoming aware, he promptly filed an application to recall the warrants and quash the attachment proceedings. However, the trial court failed to decide on his application and instead proceeded with the property attachment.

High Court’s Observations

Justice Dhand noted that the petitioner had already appeared before the trial court and expressed his willingness to face the trial. Therefore, the purpose of Section 82 CrPC, which is to secure the presence of an accused, had been achieved. The Court emphasized that once this objective is met, there is no justification for continuing with proceedings under Section 83 CrPC for property attachment. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel & Ors. (2008), which held that the intent of Section 82 is solely to procure the attendance of the accused. It stated: "purpose of initiating proceedings against the accused under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is to procure and secure the presence of the accused. Once the said purpose is achieved, the proceedings shall be withdrawn".

The judgment further clarified that an accused ceases to be an absconder upon appearing in court and securing bail, rendering property attachment unwarranted. The High Court also referred to the ruling in Navia v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2008), which highlighted that property attached under Section 83 must be restored once the accused appears

Criticism of Trial Court Proceedings

The High Court criticized the trial court for issuing attachment orders without properly verifying whether summons or warrants had been served. It noted that the process server's report confirmed that the petitioner was not residing at the address in question. The Court observed:

"Hence, under these circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner was not aware about the above proceedings. Since the petitioner has already put his appearance before the trial court and has submitted an application for recalling the proceedings initiated against him and he is ready and willing to face the trial, the purpose of Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been achieved and there is no point for issuing orders for attachment of the properties of the petitioner. Hence the impugned order dated 15.07.2024 stands quashed and set aside," the court said.

Direction to Trial Court

Quashing the impugned order dated July 15, 2024, Justice Dhand directed the trial court to decide the petitioner’s application to recall the proceedings in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel. The trial court was instructed to expedite the process and dispose the application within 30 days.

Cause Title:  Gurdeep Singh v State of Rajasthan

Case No: S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.2219/2024

Date: January-17-2025

Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand

[Read/Download order]