[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Roop Singh vs State Of Haryana on 16 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-10310-2024
CRM-M-10136-2024
CRM-M-10138-2024
Reserved On: 01.12.2025
Date of Decision: 16.12.2025
Uploaded On: 16.12.2025
CRM-M-10310-2024
ROOP SINGH ......Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA .......Respondent
CRM-M-10136-2024
ROOP SINGH ......Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA .......Respondent
CRM-M-10138-2024
ROOP SINGH ......Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA .......Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
1 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 17-12-2025 00:48:45 :::
CRM-M-10310-2024 and other connected matters -2-
Present: - Ms. Deepa Singh, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
Ms. Chhavi Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.
These three petitions have been filed seeking quashing of the
proceedings arising of the proclamation order and the subsequent criminal
case, in view of the fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute
and the petitioner has duly honoured the underlying financial liability. The
details of each case are tabulated as under:-
Sr. No. NACT/Complaint No. Title Date of order FIR No. and
of date
proclamation
1. NACT-1255-2018 Sh. Khatu 17.08.2022 791 dated
Oil and 16.09.2022
General under
Mill versus Section 174-
Roop Singh A of the IPC
at Police
Station Sirsa
City,
District
Sirsa
2. NACT-1336-2018 M/s R.K. 24.08.2023 694 dated
Enterprises 01.09.2023
versus Roop under
Singh Section 174-
A of the IPC
at Police
Station Civil
Line Sirsa.
3. NACT-1336-2018 M/s R.K. 20.08.2022 709 dated
Enterprises 01.09.2022
versus Roop under
Singh Section 174-
A of the IPC
at Police
Station Sirsa
City
2. It is also evident that Counsel for the petitioner has not been
2 of 9
CRM-M-10310-2024 and other connected matters -3-
appearing in the present case for last two dates. No one has appeared even
today. Further wait is not justified. Hence, the cases are being decided by on
merits by nominating an amicus. Ms. Deepa Singh, Advocate is appointed as
an Amicus to assist the Court. She has gone through the Court file and has
assisted the Court.
3. However, the facts of the present case are being taken from
CRM-M-10310-2025.
4. The above petition has been filed for seeking quashing of the
proclamation order dated 17.08.2022 passed in Case No. NACT-1255-2018
titled Sh. Khatu Oil and General Mill v. Roop Singh, as well as FIR No. 791
dated 16.09.2022 registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Sirsa
City, District Sirsa, together with all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, inasmuch as the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and
the petitioner has already returned the cheque amount and the complaint
stands withdrawn.
5. The facts of the present case, as evident from a perusal of the
petition, are that in discharge of a pre-existing liability, the petitioner had
issued a cheque in favour of the complainant, which, upon presentation, was
dishonoured by the petitioner's banker for 'insufficiency of funds'. The
complainant, after complying with the statutory requirements, instituted
proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereupon
the petitioner was summoned and remained present before the Court on all
dates except for 14.09.2021. Owing to his absence on that date, his bail was
cancelled and upon his subsequent non-appearance, proclamation proceedings
were initiated, culminating in an order declaring him a proclaimed person. In
3 of 9
CRM-M-10310-2024 and other connected matters -4-
consequence of such proclamation, an FIR was registered against the
petitioner under Section 174-A of the IPC.
6. Subsequently, the petitioner and the complainant amicably
resolved their dispute and the petitioner returned the entire cheque amount
along with the compensation payable.
7. The complainant thereafter appeared before the learned Trial
Court and made a written statement acknowledging full satisfaction of his
claim and expressing his desire not to pursue the complaint any further.
8. On the basis of the complainant's statement, the proceedings
under Section 138 of the NI Act were permitted to be withdrawn vide order
dated 29.01.2024 and were accordingly dismissed.
9. It is the petitioner's case that, the substantive dispute having been
settled in its entirety and the underlying financial liability having been
discharged, no useful purpose would now be served by continuation of the
FIR or by maintaining the petitioner's status as a proclaimed person.
10. Counsel appearing for the state contends that the offence
contemplated under Section 174-A of the IPC constitutes an independent and
substantive penal provision, the commission of which attains completion upon
the failure of an individual to appear before the Court, after being duly
proclaimed as per Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. It is contended that the subsequent
compromise between the parties, the settlement of the underlying dispute or
even the eventual withdrawal or extinguishment of the proclamation
proceedings does not expunge the act constituting the offence under Section
174-A, as the liability for such non-appearance is distinct from the merits of
the original complaint.
4 of 9
CRM-M-10310-2024 and other connected matters -5-
11. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through
the documents appended with the present petition.
12. Undisputedly, the dispute between the private parties concerning
the cheque amount has already been resolved, inasmuch as the substantive
controversy has been fully settled and the underlying financial liability has
been duly discharged.
13. In Baldev Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and another
(CRM-M-43813-2018, decided on 29.01.2019), a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court has held as under:-
"Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 64
dated 15.02.2017 filed under Section 174-A of the Indian
Penal Code registered at Police Station Sector-5,
Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings arising
thereof as well as order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the
trial Court vide which a direction was issued to register
the aforesaid FIR.
xxxxxxx
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
decisions rendered by this Court in "Vikas Sharma vs.
Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another (supra), 2017, (3)
L.A.R.584, Microqual Techno Limited and others Vs. State
of Haryana and another, 2015 (32) RCR (Crl.) 790 and
"Rajneesh Khanna Vs. State of Haryana and another"
2017(3) L.A.R. 555 wherein in an identical circumstance,
this Court has held that since the main petition filed under
5 of 9
CRM-M-10310-2024 and other connected matters -6-
Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an
amicable settlement between the parties, therefore,
continuation of proceedings under Section 174A of IPC
shall be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
xxxxxx
In view of the same, I find merit in the present petition and
accordingly, present petition is allowed and the impugned
order dated 24.10.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Panchkula as well as FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017
registered under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code
at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula and all other
subsequent proceedings arising thereof, are hereby
quashed."
14. A perusal of the above judgment would show that in a similar
case where FIR was registered under Section 174-A IPC pursuant to an order
passed by the Trial Court in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, while declaring petitioner therein as proclaimed
offender, a co-ordinate Bench after relying upon various judgments observed
that once the main petition under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in
view of an amicable settlement between the parties, continuation of
proceedings under Section 174-A IPC is nothing but an abuse of the process
of law. The said aspect was one of the main consideration for allowing the
petition and setting aside the order declaring the petitioner therein as
proclaimed person as well as quashing of FIR under Section 174-A IPC.
15. Another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled as Ashok
6 of 9
CRM-M-10310-2024 and other connected matters -7-
Madan versus State of Haryana and another, reported as 2020(4) RCR
(Criminal) 87 has also held as under:-
"No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondent has
vehemently argued that the offence under Section 174A
I.P.C. is independent of the main case, therefore, merely
because the main case has been dismissed for want of
prosecution, the present petition cannot be allowed,
however, keeping in view the fact that the present FIR was
registered only on account of absence from the
proceedings in the main case which had been subsequently
regularised by the court while granting bail to the
petitioner, the default stood condoned. In such
circumstances, continuation of proceedings under Section
174A I.P.C. Shall be abuse of the process of court.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.446 dated
21.08.2017, registered under Section 174A I.P.C. At
Police Station Kotwali, District Faridabad, as well as
consequential proceedings shall stand quashed."
16. Reiterating the same principle, in case of Hitesh H. Shah (supra),
continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC were held to be abuse
of the process of law, once main dispute between the parties has already
ended.
17. Under these circumstances, once the very complaint case under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed against the present
petition stands withdrawn, on the basis of compromise, continuation of FIR
7 of 9
CRM-M-10310-2024 and other connected matters -8-
bearing No.200 dated 31.08.2016 under Section 174-A of IPC, 1860
registered at Police Station Bhiwani Civil, District Bhiwani, is nothing but an
abuse of process of law. In this regard reliance can also be placed upon
judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Microqual Techno Limited and
others versus State of Haryana and another (supra), which has also been
followed in Jitender Singh versus State of Haryana and another (CRM-M-
47891-2021, decided on 16.11.2021).
18. The Supreme Court in the case of Daljit Singh v. State of
Haryana reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1 has clarified that while Section
82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is intended to secure the presence of an
accused by declaring him an absconder for evading legal process, Section
174A of the Indian Penal Code creates a distinct substantive offence for failure
to appear in compliance with such a proclamation. The offence under Section
174A is complete the moment the accused fails to appear at the specified time
and place and may continue even if the proclamation under Section 82 is
subsequently withdrawn. However, if the accused is ultimately acquitted of
the principal offence for which the proclamation was issued, the proceedings
under Section 174A would not subsist.
19. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed and proclamation under
FIRs tabulated below:
Sr. No. NACT/Complaint No. Title Date of order FIR No. and
of date
proclamation
1. NACT-1255-2018 Sh. Khatu 17.08.2022 791 dated
Oil and 16.09.2022
General under
Mill versus Section 174-
Roop Singh A of the IPC
at Police
Station Sirsa
8 of 9
CRM-M-10310-2024 and other connected matters -9-
City,
District
Sirsa
2. NACT-1336-2018 M/s R.K. 24.08.2023 694 dated
Enterprises 01.09.2023
versus Roop under
Singh Section 174-
A of the IPC
at Police
Station Civil
Line Sirsa.
3. NACT-1336-2018 M/s R.K. 20.08.2022 709 dated
Enterprises 01.09.2022
versus Roop under
Singh Section 174-
A of the IPC
at Police
Station Sirsa
City
along with all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed qua
the petitioner herein. However, the same would be subject to payment of costs
of Rs.15,000/-" to be deposited by the petitioner(s) in each petition, with the
"Red Cross Old Age Home, Account No.50100286016319, IFSC Code:
HDFC0004030, HDFC Bank Sector-15, Panchkula", within two months
from receipt of certified copy of this order.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
DECEMBER 16, 2025 JUDGE
Vishal Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
9 of 9
