IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-64361-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.11.2025 Manjeet Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. Lalit Kumar Narang, Advocate for the petitioner *****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer made in the present petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the order dated 14.08.2023 (Annexure P-4), vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in the complaint under Section 138 NI Act, NACT-614-2022 titled as Sandeep Kamboj vs. Manjeet Kumar Kamboj as well as FIR No.538 dated 07.10.2023, under Section 174-A IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner was summoned in a complaint filed under Section 138 NI Act vide order dated 21.12.2022 and on the next date of hearing i.e. 13.01.2023, directly the non-bailable warrants were issued to him, however, the same were never served as is apparent from the zimni orders appended with the petition. Consequently, he has wrongly been declared proclaimed person, vide impugned order dated 14.08.2023, since mandatory provisions of Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have not been complied with, consequent to which present FIR was registered under Section 174-A IPC. However, compromise was arrived at between the parties and therefore, the complaint in question was ordered to be withdrawn vide order dated 01.09.2025, Annexure P-5. Thus, the submission made is that continuation of the present proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court.

3. Notice of motion.

4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Saroha, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and 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person by the trial Court for having absented, however, the factum of order dated 01.09.2025, whereby the complaint was withdrawn remained uncontroverted.

5. There is no necessity of impleading the complainant or seeking any response, in view of the order dated 01.09.2025, whereby the complaint stands withdrawn by him. 6. Heard.

7. It is apposite to refer to the order dated 01.09.2025, passed by the trial Court, whereby the complaint in question itself was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn, which reads thus:

“An application to put up the main case file and to withdraw the same has been filed by learned counsel for the complainant. Heard. Concerned Ahlmad is directed to summon the original file from the record room. Now, file be put up after sometime.

(Joginder Jangra), JMFC, Fatehabad UID No.HR0674

01.09.2025 Present: Complainant in person with Sh. Vikas Verma, Advocate.

File put up again. Original file has been received from the record room and the same has been restored to its original number.

At this stage, complainant appeared and suffered a statement that he has compromised the matter with the accused, so he does not want to pursue the present complaint and withdraws the same. He has been duly identified by his learned counsel.

Heard. In view of the above statement, present complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.”

8. 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.