Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition filed by an accused in multiple cheque bounce cases and restrained any further coercive action against him till the next date of hearing before the trial court. The Court held that once the accused undertook to appear physically before the Magistrate and apprised the court of earlier orders quashing proclamation-related proceedings, there was no justification for immediate police action. Emphasising proportionality and procedural fairness, the Court clarified that trial courts must balance enforcement of appearance with lawful alternatives such as exemption applications or production warrants.
Facts
The petition arose out of 12 complaints pending under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before a Delhi Magistrate. The two petitioners were arrayed as accused in these cheque bounce cases. On 19 January 2026, when the matters were listed before the trial court, the accused chose to appear through videoconferencing, despite a specific direction requiring physical presence.
When the cases were taken up later the same day, the Magistrate noted continued virtual appearance without explanation and directed the Station House Officer to take immediate action against the accused and file a compliance report. Aggrieved by this direction for coercive action, the petitioners approached the Delhi High Court by way of a criminal miscellaneous petition.
Issues
The principal issue before the High Court was whether coercive police action was justified against the accused for non-appearance in physical mode, particularly when there existed prior High Court orders clarifying the legal position regarding proclamation proceedings and availability of alternative mechanisms to secure presence. A related issue was whether interim protection could be granted based on an undertaking of physical appearance before the trial court on the next date.
Petitioners’ arguments
The petitioners submitted that in respect of petitioner no.1, earlier proceedings declaring him an absconder and consequential FIRs under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code had already been quashed by the Delhi High Court in October 2025. It was argued that the coercive direction issued by the Magistrate overlooked this background and proceeded on an erroneous assumption of wilful evasion.
Learned counsel confined the immediate relief to petitioner no.1 and undertook before the High Court that he would appear physically before the trial court on the next date of hearing. It was urged that once such an undertaking was given, continuation of coercive measures would be unjustified and disproportionate.
Respondent’s arguments
Despite advance notice, no one appeared on behalf of the complainant. The State did not dispute the existence of the earlier High Court order quashing FIRs under Section 174 IPC qua petitioner no.1. The matter, therefore, proceeded primarily on the basis of the record and submissions made on behalf of the petitioners.
Analysis of the law
The High Court examined the scope of its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and ensure fair administration of criminal justice. It noted that criminal procedure provides structured mechanisms to secure presence of an accused, including issuance of warrants, production warrants, or consideration of exemption applications, depending on facts.
The Court reiterated that coercive police action is not meant to be automatic or punitive, especially when the accused demonstrates willingness to comply with court directions. Procedural discipline must be maintained, but it cannot be enforced mechanically in disregard of earlier binding judicial orders or undertakings given to the court.
Precedent analysis
The Court took note of its earlier decision quashing FIRs registered under Section 174 IPC against petitioner no.1, where it was held that non-appearance without wilful intent cannot justify branding an accused as an absconder. That decision had clarified that courts should ordinarily resort to procedural tools like production warrants or regulated appearances rather than initiating fresh criminal action.
By relying on this background, the High Court reinforced continuity and consistency in its approach, ensuring that subordinate courts do not indirectly revive consequences that have already been set aside by judicial orders.
Court’s reasoning
The High Court accepted the statement made by counsel for petitioner no.1 that he would appear physically before the trial court on the next date and place on record the earlier High Court order. In these circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to protect the petitioner from further coercive steps till that date.
The Court made it clear that this protection was not open-ended. It was expressly conditioned on physical appearance before the Magistrate. Thereafter, the trial court was left free to proceed in accordance with law, including consideration of any future applications seeking exemption from personal appearance or regulated appearance through counsel or videoconferencing.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition by directing that no further coercive process be taken against petitioner no.1 till 05 February 2026. The petitioner was directed to appear physically before the trial court on that date along with counsel. The trial court was granted liberty to proceed thereafter in accordance with law. All pending applications were also disposed of.
Implications
This ruling underscores judicial restraint in the use of coercive criminal process, particularly in cheque bounce cases where appearance-related defaults are often procedural rather than wilful. It reiterates that trial courts must take note of prior High Court orders and adopt proportionate measures to secure attendance. The judgment also highlights the growing interface between physical and virtual appearances, clarifying that while courts may insist on physical presence, enforcement must remain fair, reasoned, and legally grounded.
Case law references
- Quashing of FIRs under Section 174 IPC (earlier Delhi High Court order)
Held: Non-appearance without wilful intent does not justify proclamation or FIRs under Section 174 IPC.
Applied: Formed the basis for interim protection from coercive action. - Inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process (general principle)
Held: High Courts may intervene to restrain coercive steps where procedural fairness is compromised.
Applied: Used to stay police action till next date.
FAQs
Q1. Can police action be ordered for non-appearance in cheque bounce cases?
Yes, but only where non-appearance is wilful and unexplained. Courts must first consider proportionate procedural measures.
Q2. Does prior quashing of proclamation-related FIRs matter in later proceedings?
Yes. Trial courts are bound to consider such orders and cannot indirectly revive their consequences.
Q3. Can an accused seek exemption from physical appearance in NI Act cases?
Yes. Accused persons may move appropriate applications, which trial courts must decide on merits.