Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avtar Krishan Sood vs State Of Haryana And Another on 18 November, 2025
CRM-M-38017-2023 (O&M) 1
245/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-38017-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 18.11.2025
AVTAR KRISHAN SOOD ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL
Present:- Mr. Aman Priye Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG Haryana.
H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of the FIR No. 1128 dated 31.07.2022 under Section 174-A IPC,
1860 registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram (Annexure P-1)
and all consequential proceedings arising out of the same.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present
FIR is the outcome of a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submits that the
petitioner was declared proclaimed person vide order dated 14.07.2022 in
pursuance thereto FIR No. 1128 dated 31.07.2022 under Section 174-A IPC
was registered. He further contends that the petitioner has paid the entire
amount to the complainant and the complainant appeared before the learned
JMFC, Gurugram and made a statement to the effect that he does not want to
proceed further with the complaint and the same was withdrawn by the
complainant. He has referred to the order of the trial Court dated 09.06.2023
(Annexure P-2) in this regard. He, therefore, prays for quashing of the
1 of 6
present FIR as the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC
would be an abuse of process of law. He has relied upon the orders passed
by this Hon'ble Court in CRM-M-43813-2018 titled as Baldev Chand
Bansal Vs. State of Haryana, decided on 29.01.2019 wherein the FIR
registered under Section 174-A IPC has been quashed.
3. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was rightly
declared as proclaimed person, pursuant to which FIR was registered against
him under Section 174-A IPC as he had failed to appear before the Court
without any reasonable cause.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully
gone through the material available on record.
5. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing
of the present FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC on the ground that the
initial complaint bearing NACT-20756-2017 has been withdrawn as the
matter has been settled between the parties and the continuation of
proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of process of law.
6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in the case of Daljit Singh versus
State of Haryana and another, bearing Criminal Appeal No.4359 of 2024,
decided on 02.01.2025, has quashed the impugned FIR therein registered
under Section 174-A of IPC on the ground that the initial complaint under
Section 138 NI Act had been settled between the parties. The relevant
extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:-
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
2 of 6
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 174A IPC 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)19; Divya Verma v. State20;
Sameena & Anr. v. State GNCT of Delhi & Anr.21 For the
reasons afore-stated, we agree 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. That being the position of 2022 SCC
OnLine Del 1023 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2619 Crl. M.C No,
1470 of 2021, Dated 17th May, 2022 law, let us now turn to
the present facts. As we have already noted supra, the
Appellant stands acquitted of the main offence."
7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in similar circumstances, in
the case of Soni Kumar versus State of Punjab, bearing CRM-M-55315-
3 of 6
2024, decided on 10.01.2025 has quashed the FIR under Section 174-A IPC
stating that where the main complaint has been withdrawn, the continuation
of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. The relevant extract
thereof is as under:-
"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. The inherent
powers of a High Court are powers which are incidental replete
powers, which if did not so exist, the Court would be obliged to sit
still and helplessly see the process of law and Courts being abused
for the purposes of injustice. In other words; such power(s) is
intrinsic to a High Court, it is its very life immanent attribute.
Without such power(s), a High Court would have form but lack the
substance. These powers of a High Court hence deserve to be
construed with the widest possible amplitude. These inherent
powers are in consonance with the nature of a High Court which
ought to be, and has infact been, invested with power(s) to maintain
its authority to prevent the process of law/Courts being obstructed
or abused. It is a trite posit of jurisprudence that though laws
attempt to deal with all cases that may arise, the infinite variety of
circumstances which shape events and the imperfections of
language make it impossible to lay down provisions capable of
governing every case, which in fact arises. A High Court which
exists for the furtherance of justice in an indefatigable manner,
should therefore, have unfettered power(s) to deal with situations
which, though not expressly provided for by the law, need to be
dealt with, to prevent injustice or the abuse of the process of law
and Courts. The juridical basis of these plenary power(s) is the
authority; in fact the seminal duty and responsibility of a High
Court; to uphold, to protect and to fulfil the judicial function of
administering justice, in accordance with law, in a regular, orderly
and effective manner. In other words; Section 528 of BNSS, 2023
reflects peerless powers, which a High Court may draw upon as
necessary whenever it is just an due process of law, to prevent
vexation or oppression, to do justice substantial justice between the
parties and to secure the ends of justice.
10. Keeping in view the entirety of the attending facts and
circumstances of the case in hand; especially the original offence
4 of 6
being an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
of 1881, the original offence alleged to have been committed in the
year 2021, the subject matter of the original offence having been
settled amicably between the parties and the criminal complaint
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 having been
withdrawn on the basis of such settlement/compromise; this Court
deems it appropriate that the FIR as also all proceedings
emanating therefrom deserve to be quashed."
8. Another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak
versus State of Haryana and another, bearing CRM-M-14623-2021, decided
on 17.02.2022, has also held as under:-
"An affidavit was also filed by respondent No.2, which
has been annexed as Annexure R-1, wherein in para 4
of the same, it has been stated that respondent No.2-
Bank has no objection, in case, the present FIR is
quashed against the petitioner because the Bank has
received the cheque amount and consequently, the
complaint has been withdrawn. Since, the proceedings
under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 has been
withdrawn and the present FIR has been registered on
account of non-appearance of the petitioner, this Court
feels that continuance of the proceedings in the present
FIR would be an abuse of process of the Court.
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances,
as well as the authorities of law referred to above, the
present petition is allowed and FIR No.969 dated
04.11.2018 registered under Section 174-A of IPC at
Police Station Ballabgarh City, District Faridabad
(Annexure P-3) and all the consequential proceedings
arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed qua the
petitioner."
9. In the present case, since the original complaint under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been withdrawn as the matter has
been settled between the parties, no useful purpose would be served by
continuing the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC against the petitioner.
10. Resultantly, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 1128 dated
31.07.2022 under Section 174-A IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station
5 of 6
Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram along with all other consequential proceedings
arising therefrom against the petitioner, are quashed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(H.S.GREWAL)
18.11.2025 JUDGE
Janki
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
