CNR No. HRFB03-0137232024 CIS No.
CHI-1722-2024
State Vs. Makkar & Anr.
1
HRFB030137232024
Presented on : 29-04-2024
Registered on : 29-04-2024
Decided on : 27-01-2025
Duration : 0 years, 8 months, 28 days
IN THE COURT OF
Judicial Magistrate - Ist Class, Faridabad
(Presided Over by Avinash Yadav)
CHI/1722/2024
State Vs. 1. Makkar son of Sh. Sorav, resident of
Village Jaivant, P.S. Punhana, District Nuh
(Mewat).
2. Annu @ Ansar son of Sh. Noor Mohd.,
resident of Village Jaivant, P.S. Punhana,
District Nuh (Mewat).
............Accused
FIR No. 305 dated 05.10.2022
under Sections 174 A IPC
Police Station: Dhauj, Faridabad.
Present: Ms. Palak Agarwal, Ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.
Accused Makkar on bail represented by Sh. Mohd. Talim,
Advocate.
Accused Annu @ Ansar on bail represented by Sh. V.S. Dagar,
Advocate.
JUDGMENT :-
The above named accused persons stand charged for the
commission of offence punishable under Section 174-A of Indian Penal Code,
by the SHO, Police Station Dhauj, Faridabad.
Avinash Yadav,
JMIC, Faridabad, 27.01.2025
(UID NO. HR-0443)
CNR No. HRFB03-0137232024 CIS No. CHI-1722-2024
State Vs. Makkar & Anr.
2
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 22.09.2022, the accused,
who had been declared proclaimed person in case bearing CIS No.
SC/124/2021, titled as “State Vs. Makraj @ Bihari etc. ” by the Court of Sh.
Amrit Singh, learned ASJ, Faridabad vide order dated 22.09.2022, were
apprehended and the present case was got registered against them. Statements
of witnesses as envisaged under Section 161 of Cr.p.c were recorded. After
completion of investigation, challan was presented to the Court.
3. During the investigation of this case,IO recorded the statements of
witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C.
4. On the completion of the investigation, a report under section 173 of
Cr.P.C was presented in the court. Copy of the report/challan was supplied to
the accused, free of cost, as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.
5. On the basis of the report under section 173 of Cr.P.C and
accompanied documents, a prima facie case punishable under sections 174A
of IPC was made out against the accused. Accordingly the accused persons
were charge sheeted by undersigned, Faridabad u/s 174A of IPC vide order
dated 21.05.2024 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove the said charges the prosecution examined the
following witnesses:-
PW1: Rajan Kumar, Criminal Ahlmad
PW2: ASI Manoj Kumar
PW3: HC Jawahar
PW1:Rajan Kumar , Criminal Ahlmad, in the court of Sh. Rajesh Kumar
Yadav, learned ASJ, Faridabad, testified that he has brought the summoned
record. The accused persons were declared proclaimed person vide order
Avinash Yadav,
JMIC, Faridabad, 27.01.2025
(UID NO. HR-0443)
CNR No. HRFB03-0137232024 CIS No. CHI-1722-2024
State Vs. Makkar & Anr.
3
22.09.2022, which is Ex.PW1/A in FIR No.124/20 and same is in
accordance with their record.
PW2: ASI Manoj, testified that on 05.10.2022 he was posted as IO in
Police Station Dhauj, Faridabad. That day, he had received order from the
Court f Sh. A.S. Chalia, learned ASJ, Faridabad. On the basis of which, he
had registered FIR No. 305 dated 05.10.2022 under Section 174A IPC P.S.
Dhauj, Faridabad. The FIR Endorsement is Ex.PW2/A. The FIR is
Ex.PW2/B, which bears his signatures at Point-A and Point-B respectively.
PW3: HC Jawahar, testified that on 01.03.2024, he was posted as IO in
Police Station Crime Branch NIT Faridabad. That day, accused Makkar son
of sh. Sorav was joined in investigation. That his arrested was effected. The
Arrest Memo is Ex.PW3/A. Search Memo is Ex.PW3/B. Accused Annu @
Ansar was arrested in the present case. His Arrest Memo is Ex.PW3/C. The
Search Memo is Ex.PW3/D.
7. On completion of prosecution evidence Ld. APP closed the evidence
vide his statement on 27.11.2024.
8. Statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.p.c were recorded in
which they denied all the allegations leveled against them. Thereafter, the
defence evidence was closed.
9. Learned APP for the state contended that the prosecution has been able
to prove its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts by examining the
relevant witnesses and proving documents. It is further prayed that the if the
accused are convicted under the above said charge then they be awarded with
the maximum punishment provided for the said offence.
Avinash Yadav,
JMIC, Faridabad, 27.01.2025
(UID NO. HR-0443)
CNR No. HRFB03-0137232024 CIS No. CHI-1722-2024
State Vs. Makkar & Anr.
4
10. Learned defence counsel argued that the prosecution has miserably failed
to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. The instant case was set into
motion by an FIR that was lodged against the accused after they were declared
proclaimed person. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the defence
that non-appearance of the accused was unintentional and the accused pesons
have been charged wrongly. It is further prayed that the accused be acquitted of
the above said charge as an F.I.R could not have been registered.
11. I have heard learned APP for the State and learned defence counsel and
have gone through the case file very carefully.
12. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution is required to
prove that the accused did not attend the court despite publishing of
proclamation against them, and thus, committed the offence under section 174A
of IPC for not attending the court in obedience of the proclamation.
13. However, first of all, it is required to be examined as to whether or not
the procedure under Section 195 of Cr.P.C was followed while setting up the
case against the accused. The relevant part of provision of Section 195, Cr.P.C.,
is detailed as under:-
"(I) No Court shall take cognizance-
(a)(i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188
(both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860),
****
[except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such
officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in
this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is
subordinate.”
Avinash Yadav,
JMIC, Faridabad, 27.01.2025
(UID NO. HR-0443)
CNR No. HRFB03-0137232024 CIS No. CHI-1722-2024
State Vs. Makkar & Anr.
5
14. On the aspect of adherence to the procedure envisaged under Section 195
of Cr.P.C, guidance may be sought from the decision of Hon’ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Pardeep Kumar v. State of Punjab CRM-M-41656-
2023 (O&M) . It was held that:-
"19. Before parting with the case, having had the benefit of
judgment in Sunil Tyagi supra, it is considered desirable to frame
guidelines for issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, it’s publication, declaring the
concerned person as ‘proclaimed person’ or ‘proclaimed offender’
and where considered necessary, to invoke criminal proceedings
against person for offence under Section 174-A of IPC.
Accordingly, the following guidelines are being framed:
****
xvii. Once the Court decides to proceed against the petitioner for
an offence under Section 174-A of the IPC, it is imperative to
institute a formal written complaint in the competent
jurisdictional court. This imperative arises from the prevailing
provision of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
which mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of any
offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of
the Indian Penal Code except on the complaint in writing of the
public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom
he is administratively subordinate.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Avinash Yadav,
JMIC, Faridabad, 27.01.2025
(UID NO. HR-0443)
CNR No. HRFB03-0137232024 CIS No. CHI-1722-2024
State Vs. Makkar & Anr.
6
15. In the light of abovesaid case law and the discussion above, this court is
of the considered view that a complaint as envisaged under Section 195 CrPC
was not filed. Instead of filing a complaint, the present case was registered on
formal FIR, and the provisions of section 195 Cr.P.C. were not followed.
16. In view of above discussion, accused Makkar and Annu @ Ansar
are acquitted of the charge framed against them. Accused persons are
directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- with one surety for
compliance under Section 437-A Cr.p.c. Bonds shall remain enforceable for a
period of six months in order to secure their presence before the learned
Appellate Court, if required. Learned counsels for the accused persons have
filed the application with the submission that the accused persons have no
arrangement surety bonds and they be permitted to furnish personal bonds. In
view of the submission of learned counsel of the accused, they are is directed
to furnish personal bonds in the sum of ₹50,000/-. Personal bonds on behalf
of the accused furnished, accepted and attested. Case property, if any on
record, be dealt with as per law. The accused persons be set at liberty and file
be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court. Avinash Yadav,
Dated:27.01.2025 JMIC, Faridabad
(UID NO. HR-0443)
Note: All the pages of this Judgment have been checked and signed by me.
Avinash Yadav,
JMIC, Faridabad
GOVIND
SINGH (UID NO. HR-0443)
Govind Singh Stenographer I attest to the authenticiy and
accuracy of this document
Digitally signed by GOVIND
SINGH
Date: 2025.01.30 [Link]
+0530
Avinash Yadav,
JMIC, Faridabad, 27.01.2025
(UID NO. HR-0443)
