IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

306 CRM-M-34675-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 31.10.2025 HC Sandeep @ Sandeep Rathor ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Prashant Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), is for quashing of Complaint Case No. COMI/144/2023 dated 20.09.2023 (Annexure P-1) and the order dated 22.11.2024, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani in the aforesaid complaint, thereby summoning the petitioner as an accused for commission of offence punishable under Section

174 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of this petition are that in a case arising out of FIR No. 69 dated 14.03.2016, registered under Sections 323, 452, 506, 325 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Tosham, titled as State vs. Ravi Kant and others, the petitioner was cited as a witness. Summons were issued on 04.08.2023 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tosham, thereby calling upon the petitioner to appear and record his statement as a witness on 20.09.2023. On 20.09.2023, the petitioner did not appear as a witness before the concerned Court despite the fact that he had been duly served. Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate then passed the order dated 20.09.2023 (Annexure P-5), thereby initiating proceedings under Section 174 of IPC against him. On receipt of the said order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed impugned order dated

22.11.2024, thereby summoning the petitioner under Section 174 of IPC.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been wrongly summoned in the aforementioned complaint on account of his non-appearance in response to summons issued in compliance with order dated 04.08.2023. In fact, he did not receive summons issued for that day as he had been transferred to some other police station. He had received summons for the next date of hearing i.e. for 20.09.2023 and had appeared before the learned trial Court and duly recorded his statement. His absence on 04.08.2023 was not intentional but was due to the reasons as mentioned above. The learned trial Court, while passing the order summoning the petitioner, did not apply its judicious mind and did not take into consideration the aforementioned facts. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned complaint as well as the impugned order are liable to be quashed.

4. Reply has been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. Therefore, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions and has perused the record.

6. The complaint under Section 174 of IPC is based on the allegation that on 20.09.2023, the petitioner had failed to appear before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate in response to the summons issued in compliance of order dated 04.08.2023. He was cited as a witness in that case. Section 174 of IPC provides punishment for committing offences of non-attendance or omission to produce documents or electronic record by person legally bound to produce, in obedience of an order from the public servant. The ingredients of offence punishable under Section 174 of IPC are:

(i) that the summons for public attendance must be issued by a public servant who was legally competent to issue the same;

(ii) that the person summoned must be legally bound to attend at a certain place and time in answer to the summons;

(iii) that the person summoned must intentionally have omitted to attend at that place and time.

7. For an offence under Section 174 of IPC, it is incumbent under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. to file a formal complaint since as per this provision, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 o