PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
Vinay - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Haryana And Another - Respondent
CRM-M-22007-2025
Decided On : 28-04-2025
JUDGMENT :
Harpreet Singh Brar, J.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of order dated 18.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hisar in a case bearing NACT No.604/2020 whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person and the consequential FIR bearing No. 449 dated 22.05.2023 registered under Section 174-AIPC at Police Station HTM, District Hisar (Annexure P-2) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.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petitioner, wherein, the petitioner paid the amount to respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 assured him that they have withdrawn the case. As such, the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court and was declared as proclaimed person vide order dated 18.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) and subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered against him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed in a cryptic manner and the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the mandate of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has not been followed in its letter and spirit by the trial Court. He further submits that conditions as laid down in Section 195 Cr.P.C. have not been followed before the proceedings against the petitioner, which encompasses Section 174-A of IPC within its purview.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.l-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.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance and with the consent of parties, 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(l)(b) of the Cr.P.C., but Section 195(l)(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 Procedure Code bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 Indian Penal Code or abetment or attempt to commit the same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order. The ob
Sections regarding prosecution initiation necessitate compliance with procedural norms; failure to do so invalidates subsequent legal actions under Section 195 of Cr.P.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the non-sustainability of orders declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person and initiating criminal proceedings under IPC 174A due to non-comp....
The withdrawal of a complaint and the subsequent settlement between the parties can lead to the quashing of proceedings under related provisions, preventing an abuse of the process of law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.