132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 22.05.2026 POOJA RANI ... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS/482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 36 dated 14.01.2026 under Section 209 BNS (Section 174-A IPC, 1860) registered at Police Station Civil Line, Sirsa, District Sirsa arising out of Complaint bearing NACT No. 476 of 2021 titled as ‘The Sirsa Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., versus Pooja Rani dated 29.04.2021 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and quashing of order dated 06.11.2024 vide which the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person (Annexure P-3) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present FIR is the outcome of a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submits that the petitioner was declared proclaimed person vide order dated 06.11.2024 in pursuance thereto FIR No. 36 dated 14.01.2026 under Section 209 BNS (174-A IPC) was registered against her. He further contends that the complainant appeared before the learned JMIC, Sirsa on 22.04.2206 and made a statement to the effect that he does not want to pursue with the present complaint and the same was withdrawn by the complainant (Annexure P-5). 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 orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in CRM-M-43813-2018 titled as Baldev Chand Bansal Vs. State of Haryana, decided on 29.01.2019 wherein the FIR registered under Section

174-A IPC has been quashed. 3. Notice of motion.

4. Dr. Malvika Singh, D.A.G., Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the State and submits that the petitioner was rightly declared as proclaimed person, pursuant to which FIR was registered against her under Section 174- A IPC as she had failed to appear before the Court without any reasonable cause.

5. 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 a compromise has been arrived between her and the complainant and she has paid full and final amount to the complainant and the initial complaint bearing NACT-476-2021 has been withdrawn by the complainant and the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of process of law.

6. Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the case of Daljit Singh versus State of Haryana and another, bearing Criminal Appeal No.4359 of 2024, decided on 02.01.2025, has quashed the impugned FIR therein registered under Section 174-A of IPC on the ground that the initial complaint under Section 138 NI Act had been settled between the parties. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

7.3 Now, what happens if the status under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is nullified i.e., the person subjected to such proclamation, by virtue of subsequent developments is no longer required to be presented before a Court of law. Then, can the prosecution still proceed against such a person for having not appeared before a Court during the time that the process was in effect. The answer is in the affirmative. We say so for the following reasons:-

(i) The language of Section 174A, IPC says “whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by proclamation…”. This implies that the very instance at which a person is directed to appear, and he does not do so, this Section comes into play;

(ii) What further flows from the language employed is that the instance of non-appearance becomes an infraction of the Section, and