Continuation of ancillary proceedings under Section 229-A IPC is unsustainable post-acquittal in the main trial, reflecting the need to prevent abuse of the judicial process.

JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR No.92 dated 06.09.2021 under Section 229 -A of the IPC registered at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala as well as all subsequent proceedings and orders arising therefrom.

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

“I have inspected the record of police station and found that accused Paramjit Singh @ Kaka Son of Jagdev Singh resident of Zaid Police station Begowal District Kapurthala has been declared proclaimed offender in FIR No.37 dated 22.05.2014 U/s 21-61-85 NDPS Act Police station Bholath District Kapurthala by the Court of Sh. Jatinder Walia ASJ Kapurthala vide order dated 24-08-2017. It is very much clear that accused Paramjit Singh alias Kaka has committed offence under section 229-A IPC and case has been registered. The investigation of the case is handed over to SI Baljinder Singh-136/Kapu. Special Reports will be sent through Post. Control Room is intimated. Registered Report No.26 dated 06.09.2021.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned FIR is wholly misconceived and unsustainable as the same arose merely on account of the absence of the petitioner during the pendency of trial in FIR No.37 dated 22.05.2014 registered under Sections 21 , 61, 85 of the NDPS Act and Section 91 (1) of the Excise Act. According to learned counsel, the substantive trial arising out of the FIR No.37 has already culminated in clean acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment dated 02.04.2024, wherein all prosecution witnesses stood examined and the petitioner stands exonerated of all the charges. Furthermore, the said judgment has attained finality as no appeal or revision has been preferred against the same. Learned counsel has iterated that once the petitioner has been acquitted of the principal offences in the main case, the ancillary proceedings under Section 229 -A of IPC cannot survive independently. It has been further iterated that once the main trial stands decided on merits, the continuation of collateral or consequential proceedings is unwarranted and the same deserves to be quashed. On the strength of aforesaid arguments, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for.

4. Referring to short reply by way of an affidavit of Karnail Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Kapurthala, Punjab, on behalf of State of Punjab, learned State counsel has raised submission in tandem with this reply and has opposed the petition in hand.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have persued the paper-book.

6. The seminal question that arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether the impugned FIR (as also proceedings arising therefrom) under Section 229 -A of the IPC deserves to be quashed in the factual matrix of the present case.

7. This Court in a judgment passed in CRM-M-13500-2024 titled as Sanjeet vs. State of Haryana and another decided on 23.07.2025, while dealing with the issue of quashing of an FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC arising out of a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; has held as under:

“6. The seminal question that arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether the impugned FIR (as also proceedings arising therefrom) under Section 174-A of the IPC deserves to be quashed in the factual matrix of the present case.

7. At this juncture; it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of this Court passed in CRM-M-51049-2019 titled as Mohammad Ha