IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 08.12.2025 Amrinderpal Singh ........Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab .........Respondent CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present Mr.Harlove Singh Rajput, Advocate, Mr. Harman Bir Singh Juneja, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab.

***

SUBHAS MEHLA , J (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing of FIR bearing No.235 dated 02.11.2021, under Section 174-A, registered at Police Station Mataur (Annexure P-1).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person and subsequent FIR was registered on account of non-appearance of the petitioner before the learned trial Court on 18.10.2021, which was not intentional. Further, compromise has been effected between the parties and the petitioner has paid the entire amount to the complainant. Moreover, complaint before the trial Court has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure P-4). Learned counsel requested that impugned FIR as well as the order, vide which, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person be quashed, in the interest of justice.

3. Learned State counsel has stated that he has no objection if the impugned order as well as FIR be quashed on the basis of compromise having been arrived at between the parties by imposing some cost upon the petitioner.

4. Heard.

5. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-43813-2018 titled as “Baldev Chand Bansal vs. State of Haryana and another”

decided on 29.01.2019 has held as under:-

“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 Haryana and another, 2015 (32) RCR (Crl.) 790 and “Rajneesh Khanna Vs. State of Haryana and another” 2017(3) L.A.R. 555 wherein in an identical circumstance, this Court has held that since the main petition filed under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties, therefore, continuation of proceedings under Section 174A of IPC shall be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

xxx xxx xxx In view of the same, I find merit in the present petition and accordingly, present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.10.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Panchkula as well as FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017 registered under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, are hereby quashed.”

6. A perusal of the above judgment would show that in a similar case where the FIR had been registered under Section 174-A IPC in view of the order passed in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, while declaring the petitioner therein as a proclaimed person, a co-ordinate Bench after relying upon various judgments observed that once the main petition under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties, the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The said aspect was one of the main considerations for allowing the petition and setting aside the order declaring the petitioner therein as a proclaimed person as well as quashing of the FIR under Section 174-A IPC.

7. Another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled as “Ashok Madan vs. State of Haryana and another” reported as 2020(4)

RCR (Criminal) 87 has also held as under:-

“No doub