1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS 2023/482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of impugned order dated 05.02.2026 (Annexure P-3) [wrongly mentioned as order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-2) in the present petition] passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani, whereby the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person in Case bearing no. NACT/266/2024 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and for quashing of FIR No.108 dated 11.03.2026 under Section 209 of BNS/174-A IPC, registered at Police Station City Bhiwani, District Bhiwani (Annexure P-5) in view of the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement and the main complaint case stands withdrawn.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 05.02.2026 in a complaint filed against her under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and pursuant thereto, the present FIR under Section 209 BNS/174-A IPC has been registered. It has been further contended that a compromise has been entered into between the parties, pursuant to which, the complaint has already been withdrawn by the complainant vide order dated 09.02.2026 (Annexure P-4) as the petitioner has already made payment in respect of the cheque in question. In view thereof, he prays for quashing of the present FIR registered under Section 209 BNS/174-A IPC as well as order dated 05.02.2026, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

3. Notice of motion.

4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that the petitioner was rightly declared a proclaimed person and that the present FIR was rightly registered against him under Section 174-A IPC (Section 209 BNS), as the petitioner had failed to appear before the trial Court in proceedings arising out of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, despite due process of law.

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

6. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the present FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC as well as order dated 05.02.2026 on the ground that the initial complaint bearing No.NACT/266/2024 has been withdrawn by the complainant as the compromise has been entered into between the parties as the petitioner had already made the payment in respect of the cheque in question and the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of process of law.

7. The Hon’ble Apex 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 IPC on the ground that the initial complaint under Section 138 NI Act had been settled between the parties. The relevant part of which 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 therefore, prosecution therefor would be independent of Section 82, Cr.P.C. being in effect;

(iii)