JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No. 121 dated 01.07.2023 registered under Section 174-A of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Navi Baradari, District Jalandhar along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Following order was passed on 11.02.2025:

'Counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that FIR No.121 dated 01.07.2023, under Section 174-A IPC, Police Station Baradari, District Jalandhar Annexure P-3 deserves to be quashed along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. That as per the judgment dated 22.01.2024 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M3392-2024 titled Roopam Sharma Vs. State of Punjab, the said FIR is hit by proviso to Section 195 Cr.P.C, as no Court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 172 to 188 of IPC except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned. It is further submitted that otherwise also the order Annexure P-2 whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person with direction to the concerned SHO to registered FIR under Section 174-A of IPC against the petitioner is already set aside by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.04.2024 Annexure P-4 passed in CRM-M-17154-2024 titled Roopam Farms/Sharma Farms and others Vs. Late Krishan Lal Jain and another. However, the State counsel has admitted that the aforesaid order Annexure P-4 was subject to payment of cost of Rs.25000/- by the petitioner to the complainant party but the petitioner has failed to do so till date.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Inderjeet Singh Ladher, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State ankd prays for time to seek instructions and to file reply.

Needful be done by the next date of hearing.

Now be listed on 14.05.2025.

In the meantime, further proceedings qua the present petitioner on the basis of FIR Annexure P-3 are stayed, till the next date of hearing, subject to deposit of aforesaid amount of Rs.25000/-by the petitioner with the Court concerned within next two weeks.'

3. In compliance of aforesaid order cost of Rs. 25,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner with the Court concerned and photocopy of receipt of the cost has been produced in the Court. Same is taken on record and be tagged at the appropriate place.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

5. Per contra, learned 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 her presence and direction was issued for registration of FIR.

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 encompas