IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gajraj ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ….Respondents Date of Decision: February 05, 2026 Date of Uploading: February 09, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.

seeking quashing of the FIR No.0053 dated 10.02.2022, registered under Sections 174-A of the IPC, at Police Station Ram Nagar, District Karnal, as well as consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned FIR, has its genesis, in a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner (herein) under Section 138 of the NI Act, in proceedings whereof the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person & hence the impugned FIR came to be got registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the dispute in question between the petitioner and the complainant was underway for an amicable settlement and due to this reason/ impression, the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court. Learned counsel has argued that thereafter, proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. was issued against the petitioner. Learned counsel has argued that, in this case, the proclamation was issued against the petitioner on 01.02.2020 for effecting his appearance before the trial Court on 24.03.2020, however, on 24.03.2020, the learned trial Court adjourned the matter to 11.05.2020 owing to COVID-19. Thereafter, the matter stands adjourned from time to time due to COVID-19. Learned counsel has further argued that finally, vide order dated 10.02.2021 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person in contravention to the mandatory provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. Learned counsel has argued that consequently, FIR in question, under Section 174-A of the IPC, has been registered against the petitioner.

2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the dispute in question was underway between the petitioner and finally, the same has now been amicably settled, therefore, the complainant, accordingly, moved an application before the trial Court seeking permission to withdraw the complaint in question as the complainant had received an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- from the petitioner. Hence, vide order dated 29.05.2023 (Annexure P-6), the complaint in question stands withdrawn. It has been further iterated that since the criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, has already been withdrawn as the rival parties had entered into a settlement, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by continuation of the proceedings qua the impugned FIR. To buttress this aspect of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, which reads thus:

“File taken up on the application for permission to withdraw the complaint has been filed by applicant/ complainant. Complainant appeared and suffered a statement that the compromise has been effected. He has received the amount of Rs.5,50,000/- from the accused, nothing is due against accused, he does not want to pursue the present complaint and withdraws the same. He is identified by his counsel. Heard. In view of the statement recorded above, the complaint in hand is dismissed as withdrawn. File after needful be consigned to the record room.”

On the strength of above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed for grant of petition in hand.

3. Conversely, learned State counsel has submitted that the impugned order was passed solely on the ground of absence of the petitioner. He, however, does not dispute the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the matter and the main complaint stands dismissed as withdrawn.

4. None appears on behalf of respondent No.2 desp