Soni Satti
The Delhi High Court has ruled that if a notice to appear before a police officer under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is given after a person has already fled the country, it cannot be assumed that the person is escaping justice and avoiding the legal process (Amit Mavi v. State).
A single-judge bench led by Justice Anu Malhotra gave the ruling in response to a petition questioning the revocation of non-bailable warrants obtained against the petitioner in connection with an FIR filed by the Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW).
The complainant had previously filed a petition at the trial court for the cancellation of non-bailable warrants and the dismissal of the process issued under Section 482 CrPC. However, the same was turned down.
The State claimed that the petitioner should not use Section 482 CrPC in this case and that anticipatory bail would be the better option.
It was said that the petitioner fled the country the day after the EOW lawsuit was filed against him and that the petitioner claim that he couldn’t return because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The petitioner indicated that he had repeatedly requested to participate in the case investigation by video conference because he was in France and would return until vaccinated.
It was also noted that the investigation agency alleged he was evasive and demanded his physical appearance because “subsequent action” against him could not be taken via video conference.
The Court determined that the appeal under Section 482 CrPC opposing the non-bailable warrants should be maintained.
Since the petitioner agreed to cooperate with the inquiry and there was no current ban on him returning to India from France, the Court ordered him to appear before the investigating officer at EOW Office, Mandir Marg on April 30.
The Court order stated, “In as much as no notice had been issued prior to 02.09.2020 to the applicant, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner was fleeing from justice and evading the process of law. The purpose of NBWs, a Section 41A of the Cr.PC, 1973 notice and proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.PC, 1973 are only to compel the person alleged of a commission of an offence to join the investigation as also to face trial before the Court,”
The Court ordered the non-bailable warrant to be held in abeyance subject to his appearance and asked the petitioner to virtually enter the investigation in the interim.
The complainant was represented by lawyers Nishaank Mattoo and Prateek Gautam. The state was represented by APP Hirein Sharma.
