Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(P&H) 43

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
SUMEET GOEL, J.
Soni Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M 55315 of 2024
Decided on : 10-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Mehtab Singh Adv., Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind AAG, Punjab

Continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC is unjust when the related complaint under Section 138 NI Act has been withdrawn following a compromise, affirming the court's role to prevent abuse of process.

Headnote:(A) BNSS Act, 2023 - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 174-A - Criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was withdrawn following a compromise between the parties, leading to the petitioner's declaration as a proclaimed person under Section 174-A being quashed. (Paras 1-11).

(B) The High Court has inherent powers to quash FIRs and proceedings if their continuation would be unjust or abusive of the process of law. (Paras 7-10).

Facts of the case:
The FIR was filed against the petitioner after being declared a proclaimed person for failing to appear in a criminal complaint which was subsequently withdrawn due to a settlement. The petitioner argued that the proceedings against him were illegal. (Para 3).

Findings of Court:
The court recognized the necessity of quashing proceedings that undermine fairness and justice when the original complaint had been settled. (Para 10).

Issues: Whether the FIR under Section 174-A IPC should be quashed given the withdrawal of the original complaint under Section 138 NI Act was the main question addressed. (Para 6).

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that quashing is warranted when a private complaint is settled, considering fairness and judicial efficiency. The FIR should not continue if rooted in a resolved matter. (Paras 7-9).

Result: The petition is allowed, and the FIR along with all subsequent proceedings are quashed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case and fir details. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments against the legality of the fir. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's consideration of the fir's legitimacy. (Para 5 , 6)
4. summary of legal opinions and precedents. (Para 7 , 8)
5. explanation of inherent judicial powers of the high court. (Para 9)
6. decision to quash fir due to settled case. (Para 10)
7. final order of quashing the fir. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.

The petition in hand has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS , 2023 with the following substantive prayer:

“It is therefore, respectfully prayed that present petition may kindly be accepted and FIR No.34 dated 12.03.2023, under Section 174-A of IPC (Annexure P-9) registered at Police Station Longowal, District Sangrur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the order dated 25.04.2024 (Annexure P-11) whereby the charges under Section 174-A of IPC have been framed against the petitioner in view of the fact that the main complaint titled as “Jiwan Singh Versus Soni Kumar” bearing No. Nact-891-2021, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn by the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangrur vide order dated 8.04.2024 (Annexure P-10), as the matter was compromised between the parties to the complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and in view of the fact that the present petitioner was wrongly declared as a proclaimed person, in violation of the procedure laid-down in Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which was in vogue at the relevant time, may kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice.”

2. The impugned FIR (as set out in the petition in hand) reads thus:-

“Copy of letter, Copy of order No.814 dated 06.03.2023 was received through post from the Court of Shri Karun Garg, JMIC Sangrur wherein it has been directed that Soni Kumar be declared as P.O. and action be taken against him U/s174-A of IPC and the subject matter of the same is that:-No.861-2021 Jiwan Singh Vs. Soni Kumar, Present: Shri Sukhvinder Pal, Adv. Counsel for complainant. File taken up today on an application filed Ld. Counsel for the complainant/applicant whereby it is submitted that in the order dated 20.08.2022, 174 IPC was mentioned instead of 174-A IPC. Perusal of the file reveals that accused Soni Kumar was declared proclaimed person on 20.08.2022 and it was ordered that necessary intimation be sent to the concerned authorities/SHO for taking action u/s/174-A IPC. However, due to typographical mistake, 174 IPC was mentioned instead of 174-A of IPC. Mistake stands rectified. It is ordered that Section 174 IPC in order dated 20.08.2022 be read as 174-A IPC. Thus, necessary information be sent to the concerned authorities‘/SHO for taking action u/s174-A IPC. Application stands disposed of. A copy of this order be also given to Ld. Counsel for the application. Sd/- Karun Garg JMIC, Sangrur UID No.PB0578 dated 03.03.2023. On receiving the above order the case under Section 174-A IPC against Soni Kumar Son of Roop Chand Resident of Patti Vadiyani, Village Longowal, has been registered. The entry has been made in the record. IO/C Control Room, Sangrur has been informed through E.Mail. The original order alongwith copy of FIR has been sent as per the order of SHO through C. Gursewak Singh, 1907/Sang., Police Station Longowal for further investigation.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned FIR, has its genesis, in a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner (herein) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, in proceedings whereof the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person & hence the impugned FIR came to be got registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order as also the proceedings declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person are manifestly illegal and against the mandatory provisions of law. It has been further iterated that