IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.07.2025 Vijay Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Hayana and Anr. ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Present: Ms. Veena Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parveen Aggarwal, Addl. A. G. Haryana.

****

H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No. 332 dated 13.05.2023 under Section 174-A IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station City Narnaul District Mahendergarh (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 15.04.2023 in pursuance thereto FIR No. 332 dated 13.05.2023 under Section 174-A IPC was registered. He further contends that vide order dated 18.05.2023 (Annexure P- 4) the main case was withdrawn by the complainant/respondent no.2 as compromise has been effected between the parties. 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. Learned State counsel 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.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the material available on record.

5. 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FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC on the ground that the initial complaint bearing NI Act-910 of 2017 has been withdrawn vide order dated 18.05.2025 (P-4) as the matter has been settled between the parties and the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an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.

6. 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:-

7.3 Now, what happens if the status underSection 82Cr.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 language ofSection 174A, IPC says “whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by proclamation…”. This implies that the very instance at which a person is directed to appear, and he does not do so, this Section comes into play;

(ii) What further flows from the language employed is that the instance of non-appearance becomes an infraction of the Section, and therefore, prosecution therefor would be independent ofSection 82, Cr.P.C. being in effect;

(iii) So, while proceedings underSection 174AIPC cannot be initiated independent ofSection 82, Cr.P.C., i.e., can only be started post the issuance of proclamation, they can continue if the said proclamation is no longer in effect.

(iv) We find that the Delhi High Court has taken this view, i.e., thatSection 174A, IPC is a stand-alone offence in Mukesh Bhatia v. State (NCT of Delhi)19;Divya Verma v.