Dev Dutt Sharma @ Devvrat Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Anr
2026 Latest Caselaw 2288 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dev Dutt Sharma @ Devvrat Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 11 March, 2026

CRM-M-65284-2024                                                              1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH
157
                                              CRM-M-65284-2024
                                              Date of decision: 11.03.2026

Dev Dutt Sharma @ Devvrat Sharma                             ...Petitioner
                                 Versus
State of Haryana and another                                 ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY

Present :   Mr. Jagbir Singh, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. K.L. Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
            *****
AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL)

1. Petitioner is seeking quashing of the FIR No.603 dated

26.08.2023, under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 BNS) at Police

Station City Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, arising out of complaint

bearing NACT No.388/2017 titled "Tulsi Ram Vs. Dev Dutt" registered

against him u/s 138 of NI Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR

is an outcome of the complaint bearing NACT No. 388/2017 filed against

the petitioner, by respondent No.2/complainant, u/s 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. In the said complaint, on account of his unintentional

absence, petitioner was declared a 'Proclaimed Person' on 06.07.2023.

Consequent thereto the instant FIR No. 603 dated 26.08.2023 under Section

174-A IPC came to be registered against him.

Learned counsel next submits that the financial dispute between

the parties was amicably settled, resultantly complainant after getting his

statement recorded before the Court withdrew the said complaint (NACT

No.388/2017). Copy of statement of complainant dated 08.10.2024 has also

1 of 7

been placed before this Court.

In the light of the above facts, learned counsel contends that

continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC (Section 209 BNS)

would be a sheer abuse of process of law.

Reliance has been placed upon the following judgments of the

co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Soni Kumar versus State of

Punjab, bearing CRM-M-55315-2024, decided on 10.01.2025, Deepak

versus State of Haryana and another, bearing CRM-M-14623-2021,

decided on 17.02.2022 and Pardeep Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and

another, bearing CRM-M-41656 of 2023, decided on 23.08.2023 wherein

the FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC arising out of the same

complaint between the parties had been quashed. In support of his

submissions, learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble 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.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have

carefully gone through the material available on record.

4. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking

quashing of the FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209

of BNS), 2023 on the ground that since the complaint bearing NACT

No.388 of 2017 (wherein petitioner was declared as 'Proclaimed Person')

had been withdrawn as the financial dispute between the parties had been

settled amicably, the continuation of the present proceedings lodged against

him, vide FIR No. 603 dated 26.08.2023, under Section 174-A IPC (Section

209 of BNS) would be an abuse of process of law.

2 of 7

At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Daljit Singh's case (supra), wherein it was

held as follows:-

"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)19; Divya Verma v. State20; Sameena & Anr. v. State GNCT of Delhi & Anr.21 For the reasons afore-stated, we

3 of 7

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 74A 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."

A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in similar circumstances, in

the case of Soni Kumar's case (supra) quashed the FIR under Section 174-A

IPC stating that where the main complaint has been withdrawn, the

continuation of proceedings u/s 174 A IPC 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

4 of 7

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

5 of 7

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 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."

Another Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak's

case (supra), 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."

6 of 7

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for

petitioner, the fact that respondent No.2/complainant himself withdrew the

complaint bearing NACT No.388 of 2017 filed by him against petitioner, u/s

138 NI Act, the Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be

served by continuing the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC (now Section

209 of BNS) against the petitioner.

6. The present petition is thus allowed. Impugned FIR No. 603

dated 26.08.2023 under Section 174-A IPC (Section 209 of BNS, 2023)

registered at Police Station City Narnaul, District Mahendergarh (Annexure

P-2) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom against the

petitioner are hereby quashed.

                                           (AARADHNA SAWHNEY)
                                                 JUDGE

11.03.2026
Hemant
             Whether speaking/reasoned        :      Yes / No
             Whether reportable               :      Yes / No




                                  7 of 7