IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

133 CRM-M-8837-2026 Date of Decision: 16.02.2026 BIJENDER ....PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL. Present: Mr. P.K.Chugh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sunny Namdev, AAG, Haryana H.S.GREWAL , J (ORAL)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing of FIR No. 266 dated 27.07.2023 under Section 174-A registered at Police Station Arya Nagar Rohtak and subsequent proceedings thereof arising thereto.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present FIR is the outcome of a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner under Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act. He further submits that the petitioner was declared proclaimed person vide order dated 14.07.2023 in pursuance thereto FIR No. 266 dated 27.07.2023 under Section 174-A IPC was registered. He further submits that the petitioner was arrested in the above said FIR on 31.03.2024 and was produced before the Court and the ld. Court vide order dated 31.03.2024 released the petitioner on regular bail. He further submits that the petitioner has already deposited the entire amount claimed by the complainant and vide order dated 26.03.2025, the complaint was compounded and the petitioner was acquitted of the charges. He, therefore, prays for quashing of the present FIR as the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of process of law. He has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in CRM-M-41656 of 2023, decided on 23.08.2023 wherein the FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC arising out of the same complaint between the parties has been quashed. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Soni Kumar versus State of Punjab, bearing CRM-M-55315-2024, decided on 10.01.2025.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was rightly declared as proclaimed person, pursuant to which FIR was registered against him under Section 174-A IPC, as he had failed to appear before the Court without any reasonable cause.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the material available on record.

5. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the present FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC on the ground that the main matter has been settled, the petitioner has been acquitted and the continuation of proceedings under Section

174-A IPC would be an abuse of process of law.

6. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in similar circumstances, in the case of Soni Kumar versus State of Punjab(supra) has quashed the FIR under Section 174-A IPC stating that where the main complaint has been withdrawn, the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. The relevant extract thereof is as under:-

“The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, 2023/Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is primarily aimed at preventing abuse of judicial process and securing the ends of justice. Thus, when the dispute is essentially personal in nature and a genuine compromise has been reached, the High Court may intervene to quash the criminal proceedings recognizing the continuation thereof would be non-productive and unjust in the given circumstances. The inherent powers of a High Court are powers which are incidental replete powers, which if did not so exist, the Court would be obliged to sit still and helplessly see the process of law and Courts being abused for the purposes of injustice. In other words; such power(s) is intrinsic to a High Court, it is its very life immanent attribute. Without such power(s), a High Court would have form but lack the substance. These powers of a High Court hence deserve to be construed with the widest possible amplitude. These inherent powers are in consonance with the nature of a High Court which ought to be, and has infact been, invested with power(s) to maintai