IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-41523-2023 (O&M)

Date of decision: 12.05.2026 Surjeet Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. M. K. Bali, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Sutikshan Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 30.08.2022 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sultanpur Lodhi in complaint bearing No. NACT-101 of 2018 titled as “Harwant Singh Vs. Surjeet Kumar”, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N. I. Act’), whereby the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person and also for quashing of FIR No.68 dated 19.04.2023 registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, respondent No.2 had instituted the aforementioned complaint against the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sultanpur Lodhi. During pendency of the said complaint, the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person vide order dated 30.08.2022 and directions were issued to the SHO concerned to register an FIR under Section 174-A IPC against him. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, FIR No.68 dated 19.04.2023 came to be registered against the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner came to know about the pendency of the complaint and registration of the FIR only when the police started visiting his house. Thereafter, the matter was amicably settled between the parties and respondent No.2 withdrew the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after receiving the cheque amount in dispute. It is contended that the learned trial Court vide order dated 22.05.2023 dismissed the complaint as withdrawn on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

4. It has further been argued that once the principal proceedings under Section 138 of the N. I. Act have been withdrawn on account of compromise, continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would amount to abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel has also argued that the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person is itself not sustainable inasmuch as the mandatory period contemplated under law had not been properly afforded to the petitioner. Reliance has been placed upon judgments passed by this Court in “Smriti v. State of Haryana and another”, CRM-M- 20500-2022, decided on 12.05.2022 and “Narinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab and another”, CRM-M-41946-2020, decided on 26.05.2022, wherein in similar circumstances, FIRs registered under Section 174-A IPC were quashed after settlement of the main complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. Mr. Sutikshan Sharma, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 and has filed his Vakalatnama. He has admitted the factum of compromise having arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. He has submitted that he has no objection in case the present petition is allowed by this Court.

6. However, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner by submitting that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order as well as in subsequent proceedings initiated against the petitioner including registration of impugned FIR. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. This Court has heard the rival submissions.

8. The undisputed factual position emerging from the record is that the impugned FIR under Section 174-A IPC owes its origin to proceedings initiated in a complaint under Section 138 of the N. I. Act, instituted by respondent No.2