Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Vijay Pandey vs State Of Haryana on 3 November, 2025
151
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-61395-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.11.2025
Suresh Vijay Pandey
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA
Present: Mr. Nitin Bhanwala, for the petitioner.
Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
*****
SUBHAS MEHLA, J.(Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528
of BNSS for setting aside the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 (Annexure P-1)
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal in complaint bearing
No.NACT/786/2019 filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881, vide which, petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person and
consequential proceedings arising therefrom including FIR bearing No.0216
dated 06.02.2023 registered under Section 174-A of IPC at Police Station
Karnal, Civil Lines, Disrict Karnal (Annexure P-2).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was
declared as proclaimed person and subsequent FIR was registered on account of
non-appearance of the petitioner before the learned trial Court, which was not
intentional. Further, compromise has been effected between the parties and the
petitioner has paid the entire amount to the complainant. Moreover, complaint
before the trial Court has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
28.11.2024 (Annexure P-5). Learned counsel requested that impugned order,
vide which, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person as well as the
subsequent FIR be quashed, in the interest of justice.
1 of 5
CRM-M-61395-2025 (O&M) -2-
3. Learned State counsel has stated that he has no objection if the
impugned order as well as FIR be quashed on the basis of compromise having
been arrived at between the parties by imposing some cost upon the petitioner.
4. Heard.
5. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-43813-2018 titled as
"Baldev Chand Bansal vs. State of Haryana and another", decided on
29.01.2019 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.
xxx xxx xxx
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 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.
xxx xxx xxx
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."
2 of 5
CRM-M-61395-2025 (O&M) -3-
6. A perusal of the above judgment would show that in a similar case
where the FIR had been registered under Section 174-A IPC in view of the order
passed in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, while declaring the
petitioner therein as a 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, the 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
considerations for allowing the petition and setting aside the order declaring the
petitioner therein as a proclaimed person as well as quashing of the FIR under
Section 174-A IPC.
7. Another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled as "Ashok
Madan vs. 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 underSection 174A I.P.C. shall be abuse of the
process of court.
7. 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."
8. More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as
Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana and Another, Criminal Appeal No.4359 of
2024 decided on 02.01.2025; has held that:
3 of 5
CRM-M-61395-2025 (O&M) -4-
"7.3 Now, what happens if the status under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is
nullified i.e., the person subjected to such proclamation, by virtue
of subsequent developments is no longer required to be presented
before a Court of law. Then, can the prosecution still proceed
against such a person for having not appeared before a Court
during the time that the process was in effect. The answer is in the
affirmative. We say so for the following reasons:-
(i) The language of Section 174A, IPC says "whoever fails to
appear at the specified place and the specified time as required
by proclamation... ". This implies that the very instance at which
a person is directed to appear, and he does not do so, this Section
comes into play;
(ii) What further flows from the language employed is that the
instance of non-appearance becomes an infraction of the Section,
and therefore, prosecution therefor would be independent of
Section 82, Cr.P.C. being in effect;
(iii) So, while proceedings under Section 174AIPC cannot be
initiated independent of Section 82, Cr.P.C., i.e., can only be
started post the issuance of proclamation, they can continue if the
said proclamation is no longer in effect.
(iv) We find that the Delhi High Court has taken this view, i.e.,
that Section 174A, IPC is a stand-alone offence in Mukesh
Bhatia v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 SCC Online Del 1023;
Divya Verma v. State 2023 SCC Online Del 2619; Sameena &
Anr. v. State GNCT of Delhi & Anr. Crl M.C. No.1470 of 2021,
Dated 17th May 2022 For the reasons afore-stated, we aeree with
the findings made in these judgments/orders. At the same time, it
stands clarified that we have not commented on the merits of the
cases.
(v) Granted that the offence prescribed in Section 174A IPC is
indeed stand-alone, given that it arises out of an original offence
in connection with which proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is
initiated and in the said offence the accused stands, subsequently,
acquitted, it would be permissible in law for the Court seized of
the trial under such offence, to take note of such a development
and treat the same as a ground to draw the proceedings to a
close, should such a prayer be made and the circumstances of the
case so warrant.
8. In conclusion, we hold that Section 174A IPC is an
independent, substantive offence, that can continue even if the
proclamation under Section 82, Cr.P.C. is extinguished. It is a
stand-alone offence.
XXXXXX"
However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the impugned FIR
(therein) under Section 174-A of the IPC since, inter alia, the original offence in
the form of criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 in the said
case had been settled and withdrawn by the rival parties.
4 of 5
CRM-M-61395-2025 (O&M) -5-
9. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, 2023/Section
482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is primarily aimed at preventing abuse of judicial process and
securing the ends of justice. Thus, when the dispute is essentially personal in
nature and a genuine compromise has been reached, the High Court may
intervene to quash the criminal proceedings, recognizing the continuation
thereof would be non-productive and unjust in the given circumstances.
10. Keeping in view the fact that complaint before the trial Court has
been dismissed as withdrawn, continuation of the proceedings arising from the
impugned order would be an abuse to the process of law. Hence, present petition
is allowed and the order dated 03.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) and consequential
proceedings arising therefrom including FIR bearing No.0216 dated 06.02.2023
registered under Section 174-A of IPC at Police Station Karnal, Civil Lines,
Disrict Karnal (Annexure P-2) are hereby quashed subject to payment of cost of
Rs.20,000/- to be deposited with Haryana State Legal Services Authority,
Panchkula, in account No.11901238123 IFSC Code:SBIN00004172, State Bank
of India, Sector-14, Panchkula.
11. Petitioner is directed to place on record the copy of receipt of cost
on the file within a period of one month. It is made clear that if the petitioner
fails to place on record the copy of receipt, this order shall be deemed to be
dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
03.11.2025 (SUBHAS MEHLA)
Harish Kumar JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
