still the proclamation was ordered to be issued against the petitioner vide proclamation dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel next submits that even as per the report prepared by ESC Ranbir Singh, during the process of publication of the proclamation, he had gone at the address of the petitioner, but it was found that the shop at the said address was already closed. Ultimately, vide order (Annexure P-4), the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person and information was sent to the police station concerned to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC. Learned counsel also submits that in compliance of the order (Annexure P-4) passed by the trial Court, the aforementioned FIR has been registered at Police Station City Panipat.

3. Learned counsel contends that now the parties have amicably settled their disputes and on 01.07.2025, the complainant appeared before the trial Court and made a statement that he did not want to proceed further with the present case and wanted to withdraw the complaint. Consequently, on 01.07.2025 itself, the complaint under Section 138 of the Act was withdrawn by the complainant, being compromised. She further contends that in fact the summons/warrants were issued against the petitioner to ensure his presence before the trial Court and since the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have already been withdrawn, no purpose will be served by keeping the FIR (Annexure P-5) alive and the impugned order dated 19.08.2023 (Annexure P-4) as well as the FIR (Annexure P-5) are liable to be quashed by this Court, being an abuse of the process of the Court.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner had been intentionally evading the process of law and did not appear before the Trial Court. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and the petition deserves to be dismissed by this Court.

5. Learned counsel appearance on behalf of the complainant submits that the matter has been resolved between the parties on 01.07.2025 and the complaint under Section 138 of the Act has been withdrawn by the complainant from the trial Court. He further submits that she has no objection in case the present petition is accepted.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

7. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-43813-2018 titled as “Baldev Chand Bansal vs. State of Haryana and another”, decided on

29.01.2019 has held as under:-

“Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017 filed under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof as well as order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the trial Court vide which a direction was issued to register the aforesaid FIR.

xxx xxx xxx Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by this Court in “ Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another (supra), 2017, (3) L.A.R.584, Microqual Techno Limited and others Vs. State of Haryana and another 2015 (32) RCR (Crl.) 790 and “Rajneesh Khanna Vs. State of Haryana and another” 2017(3) L.A.R. 555 wherein in an identical circumstance, this Court has held that since the main petition filed under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties, therefore, continuation of proceedings under Section 174A of IPC shall be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

xxx xxx xxx In view of the same, I find merit in the present petition and accordingly, present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.10.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Panchkula as well as FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017 registered under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula and all other subsequent proceed