IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

264 CRM-M-57419-2023 (O & M)

Date of decision: 28.08.2025 Deepak Verma ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Parmod Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

None for respondent No.2.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer made in the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.998 dated 15.09.2023, under Section 174- A IPC, registered at Police Station HTM Hisar, District Hisar, and the order dated 06.07.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed in complaint bearing NACT No.1685 of 2022, titled as ‘M/s. City Electronics vs. Guru Roadlines and others, under Section 138 N.I.Act., vide which the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner was wrongly declared proclaimed person in the aforementioned complaint, vide impugned order dated 06.07.2023, however, the matter was compromised and the complaint itself stood withdrawn on 04.10.2023, Annexure P-5, but during the interregnum, FIR under Section 174-A IPC was registered on 15.09.2023, Annexure P-1, whereafter, anticipatory bail, vide order dated 10.10.2023, Annexure P-6, has been granted to him. Thus, the submission made is that continuation of the present proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court.

3. Learned State counsel submits that the FIR was rightly registered as the petitioner was declared proclaimed person by the trial Court for having absented, however, the factum of order dated 04.10.2023, whereby the complaint was withdrawn remained uncontroverted.

4. As is recorded in the order dated 15.11.2023, learned counsel for respondent No.2 expressed his ‘No Objection’ in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed.

5. Heard.

6. It is apposite to refer to the order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the trial Court, whereby the complaint in question itself was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn, which reads thus:

“Original file requisitioned from record room upon an application filed on behalf of complainant for withdrawal of the case and directing the Bank Manager of Bandhan Bank, Hisar to defreeze the account number 10190004615148. Complaint be restored at its original number. Learned counsel for Complainant suffered a statement that he has compromised the matter with accused and he does not want to pursue further with the present complaint and withdraws the same. It is submitted in the application that account number 10190004615148 be defreeze. Heard. Statement of learned counsel for complainant perused. In view of statement made by learned counsel for complainant, present complaint stands dismissed as withdrawn. Perusal of file reveals that in the present case account number 10190004615148 of accused was ordered to be freezed. Since, the matter has been compromised and case has been dismissed as withdrawn, therefore, account number 10190004615148 of accused is hereby ordered to be released. Copy of this order be sent to Bank Manager of Bandhan Bank, Hisar for information and necessary compliance. File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.”

7. In Baldev Chand Bansal vs. State of Haryana and another CRM-M-43813-2018, decided on 29.01.2019, this Court quashed the FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC in pursuance of the settlement arrived at between the parties, and held thus:

“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