Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep Kaur And Another vs State Of Punjab on 20 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
132
CRM-M-65098-2025
Pardeep Kaur and another ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab ......Respondent(s)
Decided on : 20.11.2025
Date of uploading: 21.11.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.
*****
SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)
1. The petition in hand has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023 with the following substantive prayer:
"It is therefore, prayed that present petition may kindly be allowed
and FIR no 78 dated 15.08.2024 under section 174A IPC registered at
Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) may kindly be
quashed and all subsequent proceeding arising out of this FIR, keeping in
view of the facts mentioned in the present petition."
2. The impugned FIR (as set out in the petition in hand) reads thus:-
"This order from the court of Sh. Ekta Sahota, SDJM Payal bearing
CRM 129 2022 dated 01.12.2022 has been received at police station for
registration of FIR through PHG Paramjit Singh. The contents of which are
as: "State Vs Kuldeep Singh CRM-129-2022 Present: Learned APP for the
State. Accused absent. Proclamation warrant of accused Kuldeep Singh and
1 of 9
Pardeep Kaur already received back duly served. Serving constable HC
Talwinder Singh already suffered the statement to the effect that he has
affixed the proclamation on 16 10.2022, copy of the proclamation of the
accused Kuldeep Singh and Pardeep Kaur is Ex Pl and report is Ex. P2.
statutory period has already been elapsed. Case called several time since
morning but accused has not appeared. Accused Kuldeep Singh and
Pardeep Kaur are declared proclaimed absconder. No list of property os
filed at this stage for initiating the proceedings under section 83 of Cr.P.C.
accordingly the file be consigned to record room to be put as and when
accused surrender in the court or arrested by the police or as and when list
of property is filed for initiating the proceedings under section 83 of Cr.P.C.
Proceedings against the accused under section 174-A be also initiated.
Intimation be sent to the concerned SHO for initiating the proceedings
under section 174-A of IPC against accused. SD/- (EKTA SAHOTA) Sub
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Payal. UID. No. PB00340, Date of order
01.12.2022 Poonam, Steno Grade-II)."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
impugned FIR, has its genesis, in a criminal case filed against the petitioners
(herein) under Sections 323, 324, 34 IPC in proceedings whereof the
petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person & hence the impugned FIR
came to be got registered against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has argued that the order as also the proceedings declaring the
petitioners as proclaimed person are manifestly illegal and against the
mandatory provisions of law. It has been further iterated that the FIR
registered for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 34 IPC has already been
quashed in CRM-M-31444-2025, vide order dated 12.11.2025 (Annexure P-
2) as the rival parties had entered into a compromise/settlement and hence no
useful purpose would be served by continuation of the proceedings qua the
impugned FIR.
On the strength of above arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner has pressed for grant of petition in hand.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the claim of the petitioners
seeking quashing of the FIR in question. While refuting the case of the
2 of 9
petitioner, detailed arguments concerning the merits of the case were made
and it is argued that the offence alleged against the petitioners is serious and
heinous. Learned State counsel has submitted that the Police has conducted
fair and proper investigation and after completion of the same, final report
under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was presented before the competent Court
of jurisdiction. Furthermore, it has been submitted by the learned State
counsel that the petitioners were served through non-bailable warrants but
they did not appear which compelled the Court below to declare them
proclaimed person. Instead of surrendering before the competent Court, the
petitioners have chosen to file the instant petition which clearly reflects his
conduct that they were fully aware of the proceedings and the coercive
measures undertaken by the Court below to secure their presence. Moreover,
it has been stated that the learned Court below followed the procedure as laid-
down under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in letter and spirit and no
discrepancy whatsoever is forthcoming from the records of the case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have
perused the paper-book.
6. The seminal question that arises for consideration in the present
petition is as to whether the impugned FIR (as also proceedings arising
therefrom) under Section 174-A of the IPC deserves to be quashed in the
factual matrix of the present case.
7. At this juncture; it would be apposite to refer herein to a
judgment of this Court passed in CRM-M-51049-2019 titled as Mohammad
Hanif Attari vs. State of Haryana, decided on 06.07.2023; relevant whereof
reads as under:
"3. In view the fact that after the principle proceedings in which the petitioner
was declared Proclaimed Offender stand concluded, the question would arise
is: 'whether in the given circumstances, proceedings under Section 174A of the
3 of 9
IPC pursuant to FIR No.425 dated 17th of November, 2017 can be allowed to
continue.
4. The question framed ibid is no more res integra and already stands answered
by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-43813-2018 titled as "Baldev
Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and another" vide order dated 29.01.2019,
which held as under:
"Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.64 dated
15.02.2017 filed under Section 174A 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."
XX XXX XXXX
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions
rendered by this Court in "Vikas Sharma v. Gurpreet Singh Kohli
and another (supra), 2017, (3) L.A.R.584, Microqual Techno
Limited and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2015 (32) RCR
(Criminal) 790 and "Rajneesh Khanna v. 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.
XX XXX XXXX
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 174A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector-5,
Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, are
hereby quashed."
5. Same is the view of another Co-ordinate Bench in the "Ashok Madaan v.
State of Haryana and another" reported as 2020 (4) RCR (Criminal) 87,
wherein it has been held that:
"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
4 of 9
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 LP.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.PC. at Police Station
Kotwali, District Faridabad, as well as consequential proceedings
shall stand quashed."
7.1. More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled
as Daljit Singh vs. State of Haryana and Another, Criminal Appeal No.4359
of 2024 decided on 02.01.2025; has held that:
"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 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) 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 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
5 of 9
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.
xxxxxxxxx"
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.
8. It is for the High Court, while exercising its innate plenary
powers under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023/428 of Cr.P.C., 1973, to ratiocinate
that it should not apply the law in an austere, academic and exacting technical
manner, without considering its practical implications. The Law is not merely
a set of programmed, nailed-to-the-ground rules, to be applied without
context. It must be enforced, while bearing in mind, that its purpose is to
ensure substantive justice between the parties. The statutory provision of
Section 174-A of IPC, when perused in the light of ratio decidendi of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Daljit Singh's case (supra),
unequivocally shows that an FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC does not
proprio vigore become liable to be quashed, in case the rival parties have
entered into a compromise and such criminal complaint/FIR has been
compromised and quashed/withdrawn accordingly. However, at the same
time, the factum of the criminal complaint/FIR (in furtherance of proceedings
whereof) having been compromised/settled, is indubitably, a relevant factor
to be considered while dealing with a plea for quashing of an FIR (as also
6 of 9
proceedings emanating therefrom) under Section 174-A of IPC. It would
tantamount to contravening the principles of fairness, proportionality, and
justice in criminal proceedings. A literal interpretation may sometimes lead to
unjust outcomes that also contradict the law's underlined purpose. Therefore,
the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction must balance the letter of Law
with its spirit, ensuring fair and equitable results. This approach underscores
Law's role as an apparatus for fostering societal harmony and addressing the
real-world complexities, efficaciously as also effectively, rather than mere
literal/technical compliance.
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. 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-blood, its very essence, its 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 in fact 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
7 of 9
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 fulfill 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
and equitable to do so, in particular to ensure the observance of the due process
of law, to prevent vexation or oppression, to do justice nay 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 being an
offence under Section 323, 324, 34 IPC, the original offence alleged to have
been committed in the year 2020, the subject matter of the original offence
having been settled amicably between the parties and the original FIR having
been quashed on the basis of compromise; this Court deems it appropriate that
the impugned FIR as also all proceedings emanating therefrom deserve to be
quashed.
11. It is, hence, directed as under:
(i) The FIR No. 78 dated 15.08.2024 registered for the offences
punishable under section 174A IPC, at Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana
(Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom stand
quashed.
8 of 9
(ii) All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
November 20, 2025
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: Yes
9 of 9
