JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 6.8.2001 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 13/2001 whereby the trial Court initiated proceedings under sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned and relevant challan papers. 3. Brief facts which are relevant for decision of this petition are that Smt. Bhavika D/o R.K. Joshi lodged FIR No. 113 dated 21.6.2000 at Police Station, Mahila Thana, Jodhpur for offences under sections 498-A, 406 & 323 IPC against the petitioner, Amar Lal and Smt. Mohani. After investigation, police laid the challan under section 173 Cr.P.C. against the co-accused-Amar Lal and Smt. Mohani. Challan against the petitioner was filed under section 299 Cr.P.C. declaring him to be absconding. By order dated 6.8.2001, the trial Court declared the petitioner absconding and initiated proceedings under sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. and issued standing warrant against the petitioner. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even in the FIR itself, it has been mentioned that the petitioner-Gopal Vyas is residing at Taiwan. I the FIR, the complainant herself stated that she was living along with the petitioner at Taiwan and she came to India from Taiwan on 22.4.2000. The allegation of cruelty levelled against the petitioner and other co-accused was at Taiwan. Thus, it is clear from the prosecution case that the petitioner had been living at Taiwan even prior to the date of lodging the FIR. There is no material showing that the petitioner ever came to India after 24.4.2000 or at least after 21.6.2000 the date when the FIR was lodged. There is nothing on record to show that summons from the trial Court has ever been sent to the petitioner at the address of Taiwan. Until and unless it is established that he came to India or is residing in India at the address given of Mumbai, it cannot be said that the petitioner has intentionally avoided the service of summons/warrant so issued against him. The complainant herself has mentioned the address of the petitioner of Taiwan. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been intentionally avoiding service of summons summons/warrant issued against him. The complainant herself has mentioned the address of the petitioner of Taiwan. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been intentionally avoiding service of summons summons/warrant issued against him. Until and unless it is proved that the petitioner came to India after the lodging of the FIR and had intentionally avoided the service of summons/warrant issued against him, no proceedings can be initiated u/ sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. Section 82 Cr.P.C. provides that if any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. Thus, from the language of Section 82 Cr.P.C., it is clear that Court has to satisfy on the material placed before it or after taking evidence that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed. In this case, there is no such material to show that any warrant or summons has been sent to the petitioner at the address given by the complainant in the FIR i.e. the address of Taiwan and without having taken recourse to this procedure, the trial Court initiated proceedings under sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C., which appear to be without any basis. This being the situation, the order impugned cannot be sustained and it amounts to abuse of process of Court. 5. Accordingly, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 6.8.2001 is set aside and quashed. However, the trial Court may proceed afresh in the matter after the requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. are complied with.Petition allowed. *******