Continuation of criminal proceedings under Section 174-A IPC for being a proclaimed person is an abuse of the process of law if the underlying main case (such as one under Section 138 of the NI Act) has been withdrawn following a compromise between the parties.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

This is a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (Old Section 482 Cr.P.C.) for quashing of the FIR No.477 dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) registered under Section 174-A of IPC, 1860 (Section 209 BNS, 2023) at Police Station Panipat City, District Panipat which was registered consequent to the order 24.03.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Panipat declaring the petitioners as proclaimed persons in a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The brief facts of the case are that during the course of business transactions between the parties, certain cheques were issued by the petitioners towards discharge of outstanding liability. However, the same were dishonoured due to certain misunderstandings between the parties. Pursuant thereto, as no payment was made in lieu of the dishonoured cheques, a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act came to be instituted against the petitioners/accused and they were summoned to face trial. Subsequently, they were declared a proclaimed persons vide order dated 24.03.2023 (Annexure P-2).

Thereafter, a compromise was effected between the parties and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the order dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure P-3). In view of the dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of the compromise, the present petition for quashing of the aforesaid FIR No.477 dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) registered under Section 174-A of IPC, 1860 (Section 209 BNS, 2023) at Police Station Panipat City, District Panipat came to be filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that they had wrongly been declared proclaimed persons and on learning about the same, the petitioners compromised the matter with the complainant. Thereafter, on 12.09.2025, the counsel for the complainant in the Trial Court got recorded his statement that as per his instructions, the complainant did not want to proceed further with the complaint and wanted to withdraw the same. Based on the said statement, the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn on 12.09.2025 (Annexure P-3).

The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the FIR has rightly been registered.

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper-book.

From the above-said facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the present FIR was registered in view of the fact that the petitioners were declared as a proclaimed persons in the proceeding under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The impugned complaint itself has been withdrawn.

A 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 m