In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of Decision:- 02.04.2026 Harishchandra Yadav @ Harishchandra Matadeen Yadav … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. B.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SUBHAS MEHLA , J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the impugned order dated 22.12.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram, in criminal complaint bearing No.NACT/1989/2018 dated 30.01.2018 vide which, petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person, as well as, consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the FIR No.0321 dated 26.02.2022, registered under Section 174-A of IPC, at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person with a further issuance of direction to register the aforesaid FIR on account of non-appearance of the petitioner before the learned trial Court, which was not intentional. It is further submitted that the complaint before the trial Court was dismissed as withdrawn in Pre Lok Adalat vide order dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure P-3).

Learned counsel requested that impugned order, vide which, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person as well as the subsequent FIR be quashed, in the interest of justice.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Surender Singh Pannu, Addl. A.G., Haryana, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and submitted that he has no objection if the impugned order be quashed by imposing some cost upon the petitioner. 5. Heard.

6. The 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.”

7. 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 offender, the 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 orde