Sections regarding prosecution initiation necessitate compliance with procedural norms; failure to do so invalidates subsequent legal actions under Section 195 of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.309 dated 02.04.2023 registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Civil Line, Sirsa (Annexure P-1) arising out of case bearing No.NACT/522/2022 titled as Vipin vs. Jaspal' registered under Section 138 NI Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa and all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed against the petitioner, wherein the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person vide order dated 24.03.2023 and subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made the entire payment to the complainant. Further, the complainant has withdrawn the complaint on 09.01.2025, which was pending before the learned trial Court. Learned counsel furthermore submits that the petitioner was never served and was declared proclaimed person without following the drill of Section 82 Cr.P.C. Further, the mandatory drill of Section 195 Cr.P.C. has also not been followed in its letter and spirit by the trial Court.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State and supports the order passed by the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in appearance before the trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, therefore, having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure his presence. However, she could not controvert the fact that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the complaint (supra) stands withdrawn by the complainant.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

7. Section 174-A of the IPC was introduced through the Amendment Act of 2005, and a corresponding amendment was made to Schedule 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), classifying this provision as a cognizable offence. However, no corresponding amendment was made to Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. to exclude Section 174-A IPC from its scope. The proposition that Section 174-A IPC is governed by the procedure as laid out in Section 195 Cr.P.C. is further supported by the fact that Section 174-A IPC and the corresponding Section 209 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, are essentially identical. However, Section 209 has been explicitly removed from the purview of Section 215 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 which mirrors Section 195 of Cr.P.C. In its present form, thus, Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. clearly encompasses Section 174-A IPC, as the legislature in its wisdom this time has specifically excluded Section 209 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita from the ambit of Section 215 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Furthermore, in 2006, an amendment was made to Section 195 (1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., but Section 195 (1)(a)(i) was left unchanged. Therefore, it is evident that Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. applies to the offence under Section 174-A IPC.

8. As it is conclusive that Section 174-A IPC is governed by Section 195 , it would be apposite to emphasize that the drill of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature. This position is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's rendered in C. Muniappan & Others. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567 , wherein the following observations were made:

"20. Section 195 (a)(i) Criminal Procedu