Mukta Gupta, J. - (1.) Crl.M.A. No. 10697/2018 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(CRL) 1732/2018 By this petition, the petitioner prays as under:- I. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ(s) or Direction(s) or Order(s) of similar nature thereby issuing guidelines that proceeding under Section 82 Cr.p.c. can not be initiated other than sections mentioned in Section 82 Sub-Section(4) of Cr.p.c. II. Pass a direction to the Commissioner of Delhi Police to issue direction/guideline to Delhi police to follow the provisions laid down by the Law. III. Action should be taken against the police officer who had manipulated the investigation and who had misguided and given false and wrong Statement/Status Report before the Hon'ble High Court and Ld. Trial Court. IV. Release the petitioner/co-accused as she had been illegally taken into custody and in judicial Custody since 42 days without following the due process of Law.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner in nutshell from the contents of the petition as stated is that though FIR No. 261/2016 under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC was registered on 24th April, 2016 and her son Chandan Tiwari was arrested on the same day, the petitioner was never summoned as an accused. Even in the chargesheet filed against the petitioner's son on 22nd July, 2016 the petitioner was not kept in column No. 11 nor any legal proceedings initiated against her on record. Even in the committal order there was no mention of the petitioner. Charge against the main accused was framed on 27th August, 2016 mentioning that co-accused Poonam Tiwari was absconding but again the petitioner did not know her status. It is further stated that the son of the petitioner filed a bail application before this Court which came up for hearing on 31st October, 2017 wherein it was mentioned that co-accused, Poonam Tiwari, was still absconding and the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been initiated against her and the consequent proceedings for declaring proclaimed offender is pending before the Trial Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on the Court record there were no proceedings pending actually and the petitioner was illegally declared a proclaimed offender. A perusal of the paper book filed by the petitioner and the status report reveals that since the petitioner was not available and was absconding proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioner. It is nowhere stated that the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C.;