252(2) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 25.02.2025 MUKESH SHARMA …Petitioner V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. S.K. Panwar, Addl. AG Haryana.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 123 dated 12.11.2016 registered under Section 174-A of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Panjokhra, District Ambala.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that learned Court below has erred in issuing directions for registration of FIR(supra) as, the drill of Section 195 Cr.P.C. has not been followed in the present case. Learned counsel further contends that matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Learned counsel further places reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in Sonu vs. State of Haryana 2021 (1) RCR (Cri.) 319 and the Gujarat High Court in Govindbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 830.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the order passed by the learned Courts below and submits that the petitioner did not put in appearance before the trial Court intentionally and deliberately. Therefore, being left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure his presence.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance. With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

5. 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 (‘BNS’), are essentially identical. However, Section 209 has been explicitly removed from the purview of Section 215 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) 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 BNS from the ambit of Section 215 of the BNSS. Furthermore, in 2006, an amendment was made to Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., but Section 195(1)(a)(i) was left unchanged. Therefore, it is clear that Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. would apply to the offence under Section 174-A IPC.

6. As it is conclusive that Section 174-A IPC is governed by Section 195 Cr.P.C., 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 rendered by a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s in C. Muniappan & Others. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567, wherein speaking through Justice B.S. Chauhan, 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