[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S Kisan Agro Tech vs State Of Haryana on 29 January, 2026

           CRM-M-39316--2023 (O&M)                                                  -1-



           126
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH
                                                  -.-
                                                      CRM
                                                      CRM-M-39316-2023 (O&M)
                                                      Date of Decision : 29.01.2026

           M/s Kisan Agro Tech                                               ....Petitioner

                                                       VERSUS

           State of Haryana                                                 ....Respondents

           CORAM : HON'BLE MS.
                           MS JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

           Present:            Mr. Manish Dhankar, Advocate for the petitioner.

                   Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
                                              -.-
           MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing

of the impugned order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate

Ist Class, Karnal vide which the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender as

well as quashing of FIR No. 100, dated 08.02.2020 (Annexure P-1),

1), under Section

174-A A IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Karnal, as the main complaint

bearing No.NACT-6766-2018, No.NACT 2018, has been withdrawn vide order dated 16.05.2022

(Annexure P-9) because the petitioner had paid the entire amount to the

complainant.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present FIR is the

outcome of a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner under Section 138

/142

of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submits that the petitioner was

declared red proclaimed person vide order dated 18.12.2019 and in pursuance thereto

FIR No. 100,, dated 08.02.2020 under Section 174 174-A IPC was registered at Police

Station Karnal Sadar, Karnal.

Karnal. It has been further contended that the petitioner had

paid the entire cheque

cheque amount to the complainant and thereafter, the complainant

CRM-M-39316--2023 (O&M) -2-

had filed an application before the trial Court and made a statement that he does

not want to proceed with the present complaint and the complaint was withdrawn

by him vide order dated 16.05.2022.. He, therefore, prays for quashing of the

present FIR as well as the order dated 16.05.2022 (Annexure P-9)) as the

continuation of proceedings under Section 174 174-A A IPC would be an abuse of

process of law.

3. Learned State counsel submits that the petit petitioner ioner was rightly declared

as proclaimed person, pursuant to which FIR was registered against him under

Section 174-A 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 ccarefully arefully 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 174 A IPC on the ground that the initial

complaint bearing CIS No.NACT-6766/2018 6766/2018 has been withdrawn by the

complainant as the petitioner had paid the entire amount of cheque to him and the

continuation of proceedings under Section 174 174-A A IPC would be an abuse of

process of law.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ''Daljit Singh versus State of

Haryana and another', another' bearing Criminal Appeal No.4359 of 2024, decided on

02.01.2025 has quashed the impugned FIR therein registered under Section 174-A

IPC on the ground that the initial complaint under Section 138 NI Act had been

settled between the parties. The relevant part of which is reproduced hereunder:

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

CRM-M-39316--2023 (O&M) -3-

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 aaffirmative.

ffirmative. We say so for the following reasons:-

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 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 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 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 Delhi High Court has taken this view, i.e., that Section 174A, IPC is a stand--alone alone offence in Mukesh Bhatia v.

State (NCT of Delhi)19; Divya Verma v. SState20; Sameena & Anr. v. State GNCT of Delhi & Anr.21 For the reasons afore-stated, stated, we agree with the findings made in these judgments/orders. At the same time, it stands clarified that we have not com commented mented 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 stand-alone, 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 not notee 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.

CRM-M-39316--2023 (O&M) -4-

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 stand-alone 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.

                               xxx                xxx          xxx          xxx           xxx
                               11. The Appellant

ellant has been acquitted which means that there is no case for which his presence is required to be secured. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, i.e. that the original offence pertains to the year 2010 2010;; the money subject matter of dispute stands paid, the judgment of the High Court with the particulars as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment, stands quashed and set aside. All criminal proceedings, inclusive of the FIR under Section 174A IPC, shall stand closed. The Appellant's status, as a 'proclaimed person' stands quashed quashed"

7. Similarly, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of ''Soni Soni

Kumar versus State of Punjab', Punjab' bearing CRM CRM-M-55315-2024,, decided on

10.01.2025 has quashed the FIR under Section 174 174-A 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:

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 crimin proceedings recognizing the continuation thereof would be non-

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

CRM-M-39316--2023 (O&M) -5-

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 bbut ut 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 perfections 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 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 attendin attending g facts and circumstances of the case in hand; especially the original offence 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 origina originall offence having been settled amicably between the parties and the criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 having been

CRM-M-39316--2023 (O&M) -6-

withdrawn on the basis of such settlement/compromise; this Court deems it appropriate that the FIR as al also so all proceedings emanating therefrom deserve to be quashed."

8. In the present case, since the original complaint related to the

dishonoured cheque has been withdrawn as the petitioner had paid the entire

cheque amount to the complainant, no useful purp purpose ose would be served by

continuing the proceedings under Section 174-A 174 A IPC against the petitioner.

9. Resultantly, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 100, dated 08.02.2020

(Annexure P-1),

1), under Section 174-A 174 A IPC registered at Police Station Sadar,

Karnal as well as order dated 18.12.2019 (Annexure P P-2)

2) declaring the petitioner

as "proclaimed person"

person" is quashed qua the petitioner subject to payment of

Rs.20,000/- as costs to be deposited by the petitioner in Poor Patients Welfare

Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh.