Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Supneet Singh, Advocate for Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana; Mr. Amit Siwach, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 340 dated 15.06.2023 under Section 174-A IPC registered at Police Station City Sonepat, District Sonepat alongwith all 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 and subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered.

3. 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.

4. Learned State counsel assisted by counsel for the complainant has supported 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 and direction was issued for registration of FIR.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 object of this provision is to provide for a particular procedure in a case of contempt of the lawful authority of the public servant. The court lacks competence to take cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated therein. The legislative intent behind such a provision has been that an individual should not face criminal prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by persons actuated by malice, ill-will or frivolity of disposition and to save the time of the criminal courts being wasted by endless prosecutions. This provision has been carved out as an exception to the general rule contained under Section 190 Criminal Procedure Code that any person can set the law in motion b