The Patiala House Court has upheld the declaration of a UK-based couple as absconders under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), holding that actual knowledge of criminal proceedings cannot be defeated by technical objections regarding service of notices where the accused deliberately evade the process of law.
Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler dismissed a revision petition challenging the trial court’s order declaring the couple absconders in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC. The Court first held that a revision petition against an order declaring an accused an absconder is maintainable, observing that such an order is not merely interlocutory since it exposes the accused to prosecution for non-appearance and enables attachment of property.
The revisionists contended that they had travelled to London before registration of the FIR for their son’s medical treatment, that notices were not served in the manner prescribed under the BNSS, and that the underlying dispute was civil in nature. They also challenged the legality of the non-bailable warrants and the proclamation proceedings.
Rejecting these submissions, the Court observed that while service through WhatsApp or other substitute modes may not constitute valid statutory service, the revisionists had actual and demonstrable knowledge of the criminal proceedings. The Court noted that they had engaged counsel, filed anticipatory bail applications, participated in those proceedings, and were fully aware that their anticipatory bail applications had been dismissed. Despite such knowledge, they neither returned to India nor surrendered before the investigating agency or the court. In these circumstances, the Court held that technical deficiencies in the mode of service could not invalidate the proclamation proceedings.
The Court further clarified that the merits of the FIR, including the contention that the dispute was essentially civil, were beyond the scope of the revision proceedings. The only question before it was whether the declaration under Section 84 BNSS was legally sustainable. It found that the trial court had recorded the requisite satisfaction that the accused were deliberately avoiding the process of law after the dismissal of their anticipatory bail applications.
Emphasising the object of the proclamation provisions, the Court observed that Sections 84 and 85 BNSS exist to ensure that persons with wealth, social standing or international connections cannot place themselves beyond the reach of India’s criminal justice system by relocating abroad. Accepting the revisionists’ plea, it cautioned, would render the statutory mechanism ineffective against such accused persons.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the revision petition while clarifying that the revisionists remain free to surrender before the competent court or investigating agency and avail remedies available in law, including seeking regular bail, cancellation of the proclamation and contesting the FIR on merits. It also permitted the trial court to proceed with attachment proceedings in accordance with law.