287 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.02.2025 MOHD. NASEEM ...PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. S.S. Sarwara, Advocate and Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. S.P.S. Chakkal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.279 dated 15.12.2021 registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab (Annexure P-1) arising out of case bearing No.COMA-323 of 2019 titled as ‘M/s Capital Feeds Pvt Ltd vs. Mohd. Naseem’ registered under Section 138 NI Act and quashing of order dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure P-5), vide which, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender and all the 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 and co-accused, wherein the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender vide order dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure P-5) and subsequently, the FIR (supra) was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in ‘Pardeep Kumar vs. State of Punjab and another’ CRM- M No.41656 of 2023 decided on 23.08.2023 and the drill of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. has not been followed. Further, the case, from which proceedings under Section 174-A have emanated has already been compromised. The main complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been withdrawn on the basis of compromise. He furthermore submits that the petitioner was never served and was declared proclaimed person without following the drill of Section 82 Cr.P.C.

4. Mr. Shakinderpal Singh Chakkal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant/respondent No.2 and filed his vakalatnama which is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place. He admits to the factum of compromise and submits that he has no objection, in case the FIR (supra) and the impugned order are set aside.

5. Short reply filed by way of affidavit dated 05.12.2024 of Manjit Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Circle Rajpura, District Patiala on behalf of respondent-State is taken on record.

6. Learned State counsel 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. However, he could not controvert the fact that the compromise has been effected between the parties.

7. 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.

8. 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 o