[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rupin Hemant Banker vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 23 April, 2026

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

           151

                                                              ::1::

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
                                                  CRM-M-22409-2026
                                            Date of decision: 23.04.2026

           Rupin Hemant Banker                                                .... PETITIONER(S)
                                                           VERSUS
           State of Haryana and Another                                      ....RESPONDENT(S)

           CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

           Present:            Mr. Dhruv Sihag, Advocate
                               for the petitioner(s).
                               Mr. T.P. Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
                     ****
           JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

This is a petition under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 of Cr.P.C.)

for quashing of the FIR No.0129 dated 02.07.2025 registered under Section 209 of

BNS (Section 174-A of IPC, 1860) at Police Station DLF-II, Gurugram, which

was registered consequent to the order 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the

Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gurugram declaring the petitioner as proclaimed

person in a complaint case under Section 25/27 of Payment and Settlement System

Act, 2007.

The brief facts of the case are that in discharge of his legal liability,

the petitioner/accused opted for Electronic Clearing System (ECS) of funds from

his bank account and accordingly issued standing instructions to his/her banker to

debit monthly installments in respect of the loan transaction and correspondingly

credit the same to the account of the complainant. The ECS for an amount of

Rs.8,38,919/- initiated by the petitioner could not be executed and was returned

back due to "Balance Insufficient". Complainant served a legal notice upon the

accused through post demanding the ECS amount. Pursuant thereto, as no

payment was made in lieu of the dishonoured electronic fund transfer, a complaint

under Section 25/27 of Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007 came to be

instituted against the petitioner/accused and he was summoned to face trial.

::2::

Subsequently, he was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 27.05.2025

(Annexure P-3).

Thereafter, a compromise was effected between the parties and the

complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the order dated

09.02.2026 (Annexure P-5). In view of the dismissal of the complaint under

Section 25/27 of Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007 on the basis of the

compromise, the present petition for quashing of aforesaid FIR No.0129 dated

02.07.2025 (Annexure P-4) registered under Section 174-A at Police Station DLF-

II, Gurugram came to be registered.

The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that he had

wrongly been declared a proclaimed person and on learning about the same, the

petitioner compromised the matter with the complainant. Thereafter, on

09.02.2026, the counsel for complainant in the Trial Court got recorded his

statement that the complainant did not want to pursue the present complaint and

wanted to withdraw the same on the instructions of complainant. Based on the

said statement, the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn on

09.02.2026 (Annexure P-5).

The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and has

submitted that the FIR has rightly been registered.

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has

perused the paper-book.

From the above-said facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the

present FIR was registered in view of the fact that the petitioner was declared as a

proclaimed person in the proceeding under Section 25/27 of Payment and

Settlement System Act, 2007. The impugned complaint itself has been withdrawn.

::3::

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

::4::

of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula and

all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, are hereby

quashed."

A perusal of the above judgment would show that in a similar case

where the FIR had been registered under Section 174-A of 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.

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 under Section

174A I.P.C. Shall be abuse of the process of court.

::5::

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."

A perusal of the relevant extract of the above judgment would show

that where the main case was dismissed for want of prosecution, it was observed

that the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC shall be an abuse of

the process of court. A similar view has been expressed by this Court in "Anil

Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar and another, CRM-M-5878-2022 decided on

06.04.2022", "Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar and another, CRM-M-5755-

2022 decided on 06.04.2022" and "Varinder Kumar @ Virender Kumar Versus

State of Haryana and another, CRM-M-42551-2021 decided on 19.04.2022".

In the present case, the proceedings under Section 25/27 of Payment

and Settlement System Act, 2007 have culminated in a settlement with the

withdrawal of the complaint.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and subject to a