In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (cid:1)

135 (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:1)

Date of Decision: 08.07.2025 (cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:18)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:13)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:20)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:17) .....PETITIONER (cid:1)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Present: Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.(cid:1)

****(cid:1)

H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

(cid:1)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 for quashing of the FIR No.497 dated 18.08.2018 under Section 174-A IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station Quila, Panipat (Annexure P-2) and order dated 26.07.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Annexure P-3) and all consequential proceedings arising out of the same.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present FIR is the outcome of a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submits that the petitioner was declared proclaimed person vide order dated 26.07.2018 in pursuance thereto FIR No. 497 dated 18.08.2018 under Section 174-A IPC was registered. He further contends that the complaint filed against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has already been compromised and the petitioner had paid the amount alleged in the complaint and the said complaint has been withdrawn by the complainant on 03.10.2018; the complainant appeared before the learned JMIC, Tohana and made a statement to that effect and the complaint was withdrawn by the complainant. He has referred to the order of the trial Court dated 03.10.2018 (Annexure P-5) in this regard. He, therefore, prays for quashing of the present FIR as the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of process of law. He has relied upon the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in CRM-M-43813- 2018 titled as “Baldev Chand Bansal Vs. State of Haryana”, decided on 29.01.2019 wherein the FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC has been quashed.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Ms. Ankita Ahuja, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. She submits that the petitioner was rightly declared as proclaimed person, pursuant to which FIR was registered against him under Section 174-A IPC as he had failed to appear before the Court without any reasonable cause. (cid:1)

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the material available on record.(cid:1)

6. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the present FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC on the ground that the initial complaint bearing NACT-530 of 2017 dated 07.03.2017 has been withdrawn as the matter has been settled between the parties and the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of process of law. (cid:1)

7. Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the case of Daljit Singh versus State of Haryana and another, bearing Criminal Appeal No.4359 of 2024, decided on 02.01.2025, has quashed the impugned FIR therein registered under Section 174-A of IPC on the ground that the initial complaint under Section 138 NI Act had been settled between the parties. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:-(cid:1)

7.3 Now, what happens if the status under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is nullified i.e., the person subjected to such proclamation, by virtue of subsequent developments is no longer required to be presented before a Court of law. Then, can the prosecution still proceed against such a person for having not appeared before a Court during the time that the process was in effect. The answer is in the affirmative. We say so for the following reasons:-

(i) The la