IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No.131 Decided On : October 30, 2025 Vikram Singh Rathore .... Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.

* * *

Present : Mr. Karan Jangra, Advocate Ms. Raahat Kataria, Advocate Mr. Anmol Tuteja, Advocate and Mr. Bhavuk Datta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. R. K. Singla, Addl. A. G. Haryana.

* * *

SUKHVINDER KAUR , J . :

Through the present petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.344 dated 01.10.2019, under Section 174-A IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad, as the matter had already been settled amicably between the parties, as a result whereof, the petitioner had already been acquitted in the main case i.e. FIR No.538 dated 16.12.2016, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad, out of which the aforesaid FIR No.344 dated 01.10.2019, under Section 174-A IPC, 1860 had arisen, due to non-appearance and proclamation proceedings against the petitioner.

Brief facts of the case are that FIR No.538 dated 16.12.2016, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, was registered at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad against the petitioner on the basis of complaint made by one Hardeep Singh. In that case, the petitioner was granted bail on 10.04.2017. However, later proclamation was issued against the petitioner under Section 82 Cr.P.C. due to his non-appearance and subsequently, FIR in question i.e. FIR No.344 dated 01.10.2019, under Section 174-A IPC, 1860 was registered against the petitioner. On 31.07.2023, the dispute between the complainant and the petitioner was settled amicably and as a result, the petitioner was acquitted in the aforesaid FIR No.538 dated 16.12.2016. So, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition, praying for dismissal of subsequent FIR i.e. FIR No.344 dated 01.10.2019, under Section 174-A IPC, 1860, on the basis of his acquittal in the main case i.e. FIR No.538 dated 16.12.2016, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that in FIR No.538 dated 16.12.2016, registered under Sections 406, 420 IPC, at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad, the petitioner was declared proclaimed person. However, the parties entered into a compromise and settled their dispute amicably. As a result, vide order dated 31.07.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehabad, the offence was compounded and the petitioner had already been acquitted in that case on the basis of compromise. The said fact has not been disputed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-State.

Thus, in view of aforesaid order dated 31.07.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehabad, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no purpose would be achieved by continuing with the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question under Section 174-A IPC. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Ashok Madan vs. State of Haryana and another – 2020 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 87, and has contended that the case of the petitioner is identical on facts and law to that of the referred judgment.

Learned State counsel though submitted that aforementioned FIR has rightly been registered against the petitioner in accordance with law, by following all the provisions of Cr.P.C., and same is required to come to a logical end, but he very fairly conceded that the very dispute, out of which proceedings were ordered to be initiated against the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC, stand finalised and the petitioner had already been acquitted in that case.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

In Baldev Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and another – CRM-M-43813