203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-62002-2023 (O&M)

Date of decision: 30.01.2025 Vishal Satinder Sood and another ... Petitioners Vs.

State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sangram Singh Saron, Advocate, Ms. Amisha Batra, Advocate, Mr. Madhav Rao, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.

*******

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of FIR No.214 dated 08.03.2018 under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) [now Section 209 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’)], registered at Police Station Sector-8, Faridabad, District Faridabad and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that on account of dishonouring of a cheque, which was issued by the petitioners to discharge their legal liability, on 20.10.2015, a complaint bearing NACT No.4859/2015 was filed by the complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’) read with Section 142 of NI Act against the company M/s Catmoss Retail Pvt. Ltd. and its directors including the petitioners, who were arraigned as accused No.7 & 5 respectively, in which all the accused including the petitioners were summoned vide order dated 20.01.2016 (Annexure P-3) and without waiting for service of summons, non- bailable warrants were issued against the petitioners vide order dated 08.04.2016 (Annexure P-4). It is further contended that notice to petitioner No.2 was sent on the wrong address, due to which, the petitioners could not appear before learned trial Court. Ultimately, vide order dated 30.11.2017 (Annexure P-7), learned trial Court, without application of judicial mind, declared the petitioners as proclaimed persons and the intimation was further sent to SHO concerned to facilitate him to lodge an FIR against the proclaimed persons for commission of offence under Section 174-A of IPC (now Section

160 of BNS).

3. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners did not put in appearance before learned trial Court intentionally and deliberately and consequently, FIR (supra) was registered.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance.

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

6. As it is conclusive that Section 174-A of IPC is governed by Section 195 of Cr.P.C., it would be apposite to emphasize that the drill of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature. This position is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s rendered in C. Mu