CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 129 Sanjeet State of Haryana and another CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No.0261 174-A of IPC registered at Police Station Karnal Civil, Karnal (Haryana) as also order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the trial Court whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in criminal complaint No.NACT 2019 titled as “ Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. 2. thus:- -13500-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH V/s State of Haryana and another CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Rahul Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No.0261 A of IPC registered at Police Station Karnal Civil, Karnal (Haryana) as also order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the trial Court whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in criminal complaint No.NACT 019 titled as “Cholamandlam vs. Sanjeet Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The impugned FIR (as set out in the petition in hand) reads “CNR No: HRKR030009032019 CIS No. NACT CHOLAMANDLAM Vs. Sanjeet Present Sh. Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for the complainant Today the case was fixed for awating appearance/arrest of the accused. Proclamation issued against the accused received back duly served and published by way of publication required under Section 82 Cr.PC. Separate statement of executing constable ESI Dayanand, No.964, Karnal recorded vide dated 23.11.2022. Heard. In view of such report, this court is satisfied that presence of accused could not be secured by ordinary mean Sanjeet son of Sh. Suresh Kumar, r/o house no.200/6 Gali no.3, Adradh Nagar, Near Chopal Distt. Sonipat is hereby declared as proclaimed person. At this stage let preliminary evidence be read as evidence under Section 299 Cr.P.C. and as complainant do not want to further lead any 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-13500-2024 Date of decision: 23.07.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Rahul Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ***** Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No.0261 dated 12.02.2023 under Section A of IPC registered at Police Station Karnal Civil, Karnal (Haryana) as also order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the trial Court whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in criminal complaint No.NACT-251 of Cholamandlam vs. Sanjeet” filed under Section 138 of The impugned FIR (as set out in the petition in hand) reads CNR No: HRKR030009032019 CIS No. NACT-251-2019 CHOLAMANDLAM Vs. Sanjeet Present Sh. Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for the complainant Today the case was fixed for awating appearance/arrest of the accused. Proclamation issued against the accused received back duly served and published by way of publication required under Section 82 Cr.PC. Separate statement of executing constable ESI Dayanand, No.964, Karnal recorded vide dated 23.11.2022. Heard. In view of such report, this court is satisfied that presence of accused could not be secured by ordinary means, Accordingly, accused Sanjeet son of Sh. Suresh Kumar, r/o house no.200/6 Gali no.3, Adradh Nagar, Near Chopal Distt. Sonipat is hereby declared as proclaimed person. At this stage let preliminary evidence be read as evidence under d as complainant do not want to further lead any .2025 Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., dated 12.02.2023 under Section A of IPC registered at Police Station Karnal Civil, Karnal (Haryana) as also order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the trial Court whereby the petitioner 251 of ” filed under Section 138 of The impugned FIR (as set out in the petition in hand) reads CHOLAMANDLAM Vs. Sanjeet Present Sh. Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for the complainant Today the case was fixed for awating appearance/arrest of the accused. Proclamation issued against the accused received back duly served and published by way of publication as required under Section 82 Cr.PC. Separate statement of executing constable ESI Dayanand, No.964, Karnal recorded vide dated 23.11.2022. Heard. In view of such report, this court is satisfied that presence of s, Accordingly, accused Sanjeet son of Sh. Suresh Kumar, r/o house no.200/6 Gali no.3, Adradh Nagar, Near Chopal Distt. Sonipat is hereby declared as proclaimed person. At this stage let preliminary evidence be read as evidence under d as complainant do not want to further lead any AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.23 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 3. impugned FIR, has its genesis, in a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner (herein) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, in proceedings whereof the petitioner was declared as a procla hence the impugned FIR came to be got registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order as also the proceedings declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person are manifestly illegal and against iterated that the criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 has already been withdrawn as the rival parties had entered into a settlement and hence no useful purpose would be served by contin qua the impugned FIR. To buttress this aspect of his argument, learned -13500-2024 evidence under Section 299 Cr.PC. Therefore, same is hereby closed by court order. An intimation with a copy of this order be sent to the SHO concerned and PO Stoff with a direction to register 174A IPC and to take necessary legal action under due court on or before 13.2.2023. Further the concerned SHO is directed to ascertain property details of the proclaimed person in order to carry out the proceedings as per Section-83 Cr.PC. 1973. the concerned SHO can investigate the present matter by taking into account the documents for residential proof etc.. submitted by the proclaimed person while opening the account with the concerned bank of which cheque in question in present case was issued. List of property as well as alternative bank account of accused not provided by the complainant. Considering the aforesaid facts the only option left with this court is to attach the existing bank account of accused as per cheque in que available on case record i.e. account bearing no. 17321000032007 with bank namely HDFC Bank, Samta Chowk Distt. Sonipat Gohana. A copy of order be sent to Manager of the concerned bank, so as to attach the bank account of the accused. Now, to come upon 13.2.2023 for awaiting FIR. Further complainant is directed to file list of mogeble and immovable property of accused on date fixed for taking Neelam Judicial Magistrate Ist Class.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned FIR, has its genesis, in a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner (herein) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, in proceedings whereof the petitioner was declared as a procla hence the impugned FIR came to be got registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order as also the proceedings declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person are manifestly illegal and against the mandatory provisions of law. It has been further iterated that the criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 has already been withdrawn as the rival parties had entered into a settlement and hence no useful purpose would be served by contin the impugned FIR. To buttress this aspect of his argument, learned 2 evidence under Section 299 Cr.PC. Therefore, same is hereby closed by court order. An intimation with a copy of this order be sent to the SHO with a direction to register a case under section IPC and to take necessary legal action under due intimation to this court on or before 13.2.2023. Further the concerned SHO is directed to ascertain property details of the proclaimed person in order to carry out 83 Cr.PC. 1973. the concerned SHO can investigate the present matter by taking into account the documents for residential proof etc.. submitted by the proclaimed person while opening the account with the concerned bank of which cheque in question in nt case was issued. List of property as well as alternative bank account of accused not provided by the complainant. Considering the aforesaid facts the only option left with this court is to attach the existing bank account of accused as per cheque in question, details of which are available on case record i.e. account bearing no. 17321000032007 with bank namely HDFC Bank, Samta Chowk Distt. Sonipat Gohana. A copy of order be sent to Manager of the concerned bank, so as to attach the bank cused. Now, to come upon 13.2.2023 for awaiting FIR. Further complainant is directed to file list of mogeble and immovable property of accused on date fixed for taking further action as per law. SD Neelam Judicial Magistrate Ist Class.” l for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned FIR, has its genesis, in a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner (herein) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, in proceedings whereof the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person & hence the impugned FIR came to be got registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order as also the proceedings declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person are manifestly the mandatory provisions of law. It has been further iterated that the criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 has already been withdrawn as the rival parties had entered into a settlement and hence no useful purpose would be served by continuation of the proceedings the impugned FIR. To buttress this aspect of his argument, learned evidence under Section 299 Cr.PC. Therefore, same is hereby closed by court order. An intimation with a copy of this order be sent to the SHO section to this court on or before 13.2.2023. Further the concerned SHO is directed to ascertain property details of the proclaimed person in order to carry out 83 Cr.PC. 1973. the concerned SHO can investigate the present matter by taking into account the documents for residential proof etc.. submitted by the proclaimed person while opening the account with the concerned bank of which cheque in question in nt case was issued. List of property as well as alternative bank account of accused not provided by the complainant. Considering the aforesaid facts the only option left with this court is to attach the existing stion, details of which are available on case record i.e. account bearing no. 17321000032007 with bank namely HDFC Bank, Samta Chowk Distt. Sonipat Gohana. A copy of order be sent to Manager of the concerned bank, so as to attach the bank cused. Now, to come upon 13.2.2023 for awaiting FIR. Further complainant is directed to file list of mogeble and immovable further action as per law. SD l for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned FIR, has its genesis, in a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner (herein) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, imed person & hence the impugned FIR came to be got registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order as also the proceedings declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person are manifestly the mandatory provisions of law. It has been further iterated that the criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 has already been withdrawn as the rival parties had entered into a settlement and uation of the proceedings the impugned FIR. To buttress this aspect of his argument, learned AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.23 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate which reads thus: petitioner has pressed for grant of petition in hand. 4. impugned order was passed solely on the ground of the absence of the petitioner. He, however, does not dispute the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the matter and the main complaint stan withdrawn. 5. persued the paper 6. petition is as to whether the impugned FIR (as also proceedings arisi therefrom) under Section 174 factual matrix of the present case. 7. judgment of this Court passed in Hanif Attar reads as under: -13500-2024 counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate which reads thus: “Today the case was fixe statement suffered by the counsel for complainant on dated 2.3.2024. Heard. Keeping in view the above statement of the counsel for complainant, present complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. File be consigned to compliance.” On the strength of above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed for grant of petition in hand. Conversely, learned State counsel has submitted that the impugned order was passed solely on the ground of the absence of the petitioner. He, however, does not dispute the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the matter and the main complaint stan withdrawn. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have persued the paper-book. The seminal question that arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether the impugned FIR (as also proceedings arisi therefrom) under Section 174-A of the IPC deserves to be quashed in the factual matrix of the present case. At this juncture; it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of this Court passed in CRM-M Hanif Attari vs. State of Haryana, decided on 06.07.2023 reads as under: “3. In view the fact that after the principle proceedings in which the petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender stand concluded, the question would arise is: 'whether in the given circumstances, proceedings under 3 counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate which reads thus: Today the case was fixed for consideration. In view of the statement suffered by the counsel for complainant on dated 2.3.2024. Heard. Keeping in view the above statement of the counsel for complainant, present complaint is hereby dismissed as be consigned to record room after due On the strength of above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed for grant of petition in hand. Conversely, learned State counsel has submitted that the impugned order was passed solely on the ground of the absence of the petitioner. He, however, does not dispute the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the matter and the main complaint stands dismissed as I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have The seminal question that arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether the impugned FIR (as also proceedings arisi A of the IPC deserves to be quashed in the At this juncture; it would be apposite to refer herein to a M-51049-2019 titled as Mohammad decided on 06.07.2023; relevant whereof 3. In view the fact that after the principle proceedings in which the petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender stand concluded, the question given circumstances, proceedings under counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 04.03.2024 passed d for consideration. In view of the statement suffered by the counsel for complainant on dated 2.3.2024. Heard. Keeping in view the above statement of the counsel for complainant, present complaint is hereby dismissed as record room after due On the strength of above arguments, learned counsel for the Conversely, learned State counsel has submitted that the impugned order was passed solely on the ground of the absence of the petitioner. He, however, does not dispute the fact that the parties have dismissed as I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have The seminal question that arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether the impugned FIR (as also proceedings arising A of the IPC deserves to be quashed in the At this juncture; it would be apposite to refer herein to a Mohammad ; relevant whereof 3. In view the fact that after the principle proceedings in which the petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender stand concluded, the question given circumstances, proceedings under AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.23 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -13500-2024 Section 174A of the IPC pursuant to FIR No.425 dated 17th of November, 2017 can be allowed to continue. 4. The question framed ibid is no more res integra and already stands answered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Cour as "Baldev Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and another" vide order dated 29.01.2019, which held as under: “Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017 filed under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Cod registered at Police Station Sector 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." XX XXX XXXX Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by this Court in "Vikas Sharma v. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another (supra), 2017, (3) L.A.R.584, Microqual Techno Limited and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2015 (32) RCR (Criminal) 790 and "Rajneesh Khanna v. 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 betwee proceedings under Section 174A of IPC shall be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. XX XXX XXXX In view of the same, I find merit in the present petition and accordingly, present petition is allowed and dated 24.10.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Panchkula as well as FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017 registered under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings thereof, are hereby quashed." 5. Same is the view of another Co-ordinate Bench in the "Ashok Madaan v. State of Haryana and another" reported as 2020 (4) RCR (Criminal) 87, wherein it has been held that: "No doubt, the learned counsel for the res argued that the offence under Section 174A I.P.C. is independent of the main case, therefore, merely because the main case has been dismissed for want of prosecution, the present petition cannot be allowed, however, keeping in view t 4 Section 174A of the IPC pursuant to FIR No.425 dated 17th of November, 4. The question framed ibid is no more res integra and already stands ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-43813-2018 titled as "Baldev Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and another" vide order dated “Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017 filed under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Cod 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." XXXX unsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by this Court in "Vikas Sharma v. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another (supra), 2017, (3) L.A.R.584, Microqual Techno Limited and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2015 (32) 90 and "Rajneesh Khanna v. 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. XXXX In view of the same, I find merit in the present petition and accordingly, present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.10.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Panchkula as well as FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017 registered under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station 5, Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, are hereby quashed." ordinate Bench in the "Ashok Madaan v. State of Haryana and another" reported as 2020 (4) RCR (Criminal) 87, "No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the offence under Section 174A I.P.C. is independent of the main case, therefore, merely because the main case has been dismissed for want of prosecution, the present petition cannot be allowed, however, keeping in view the fact that the present FIR Section 174A of the IPC pursuant to FIR No.425 dated 17th of November, 4. The question framed ibid is no more res integra and already stands 2018 titled as "Baldev Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and another" vide order dated “Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017 filed under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code 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 unsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by this Court in "Vikas Sharma v. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another (supra), 2017, (3) L.A.R.584, Microqual Techno Limited and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2015 (32) 90 and "Rajneesh Khanna v. 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 n the parties, therefore, continuation of proceedings under Section 174A of IPC shall be nothing but an In view of the same, I find merit in the present petition and the impugned order dated 24.10.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Panchkula as well as FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017 registered under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station arising ordinate Bench in the "Ashok Madaan v. State of Haryana and another" reported as 2020 (4) RCR (Criminal) 87, pondent has vehemently argued that the offence under Section 174A I.P.C. is independent of the main case, therefore, merely because the main case has been dismissed for want of prosecution, the present petition cannot be he fact that the present FIR AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.23 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7.1. as Daljit Singh vs. State of Haryana and Another No.4359 of 2024 decided on 02.01.2025; has held that: -13500-2024 was registered only on account of absence from the proceedings in the main case which had been subsequently regularised by the court while granting bail to the petitioner, the default stood condoned. In such circumstances, cont under Section 174A LP.C. shall be abuse of the process of court. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 446 dated 21.08.2017, registered under Section 174A I.PC. at Police Station Kotwali, District Faridabad, as well as c shall stand quashed." More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled Daljit Singh vs. State of Haryana and Another 9 of 2024 decided on 02.01.2025; has held that: “7.3 Now, what happens if the status under 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 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 doe 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) So, while proceedings under initiated independent of Section 82 started post the issuance of proclamation, they can continue if the said proclamation is no longer in effect. (iv) We find that the Delhi High Court has taken this view, i.e., that Section 174A, IPC is a stand v.State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1023 v. State 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2619 GNCT of Delhi & Anr. May, 2022 For the reasons afore 5 was registered only on account of absence from the proceedings in the main case which had been subsequently regularised by the court while granting bail to the petitioner, the default stood condoned. In such circumstances, continuation of proceedings under Section 174A LP.C. shall be abuse of the process of court. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 446 dated 21.08.2017, registered under Section 174A I.PC. at Police Station Kotwali, District Faridabad, as well as consequential proceedings the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled Daljit Singh vs. State of Haryana and Another, Criminal Appeal 9 of 2024 decided on 02.01.2025; has held that: 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 w. 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 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 What further flows from the language employed is that the appearance becomes an infraction of the Section, and therefore, prosecution therefor would be independent , Cr.P.C. being in effect; So, while proceedings under Section 174A IPC cannot be Section 82, Cr.P.C., i.e., can only be started post the issuance of proclamation, they can continue if the said proclamation is no longer in effect. (iv) We find that the Delhi High Court has taken this view, i.e., , IPC is a stand-alone offence in Mukesh Bhatia 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1023; Divya Verma 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2619; Sameena & Anr. v. State Crl. M.C. No.1470 of 2021, Dated 17 the reasons afore-stated, we agree with the was registered only on account of absence from the proceedings in the main case which had been subsequently regularised by the court while granting bail to the petitioner, the default stood inuation of proceedings under Section 174A LP.C. shall be abuse of the process of court. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 446 dated 21.08.2017, registered under Section 174A I.PC. at Police Station onsequential proceedings the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled , Criminal Appeal 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 w. 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 , 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 s not do so, this Section What further flows from the language employed is that the appearance becomes an infraction of the Section, and therefore, prosecution therefor would be independent IPC cannot be , Cr.P.C., i.e., can only be started post the issuance of proclamation, they can continue if the (iv) We find that the Delhi High Court has taken this view, i.e., Mukesh Bhatia Divya Verma Sameena & Anr. v. State Crl. M.C. No.1470 of 2021, Dated 17th stated, we agree with the AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.23 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- FIR (therein) offence in the form of in the said case had been settled and withdrawn by the rival parties. 8. powers under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023/428 of Cr.P.C., 1973, to ratiocinate that it should not apply the law in an austere, academic and exacting technical manner, without considering its practical implications. The Law is not merely a set of programmed, be applied without context. It must its purpose is to ensure substantive justice between the parties. provision of Section decidendi of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case (supra), unequivocally shows that a IPC does not -13500-2024 findings made in these judgments/orders. At the same time, it stands clarified that we have not commented on the merits of the cases. (v) Granted that the offence prescribed in indeed stand-alone, given that it arises out of an original offence connection with which proceedings under initiated and in the said offence the accused stands, subsequently, acquitted, it would be permissible in law for the Court seized of the trial under such offence, to take note of such a development and treat the same as a ground to draw the proceedings to a close, should such a prayer be made and the circumstances of the case so warrant. 8. In conclusion, we hold that substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation under Section 82, Cr.P.C. is extinguished. It is a stand xxxxxxxxx” However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the impugned (therein) under Section 174-A of the IPC since, offence in the form of criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 in the said case had been settled and withdrawn by the rival parties. It is for the High Court, while exercising its innate plenary powers under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023/428 of Cr.P.C., 1973, to tiocinate that it should not apply the law in an austere, academic and exacting technical manner, without considering its practical implications. The Law is not merely a set of programmed, be applied without context. It must be enforced, while bearing in mind, that its purpose is to ensure substantive justice between the parties. provision of Section 174-A of IPC, when perused in the light of ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case (supra), unequivocally shows that a IPC does not proprio vigore become liable to be quashed 6 findings made in these judgments/orders. At the same time, it tands clarified that we have not commented on the merits of the (v) Granted that the offence prescribed in Section 174A IPC is alone, given that it arises out of an original offence connection with which proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is initiated and in the said offence the accused stands, subsequently, acquitted, it would be permissible in law for the Court seized of the trial under such offence, to take note of such a development and treat the same as a ground to draw the proceedings to a close, should such a prayer be made and the circumstances of the case so In conclusion, we hold that Section 174A IPC is an independent, substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation , Cr.P.C. is extinguished. It is a stand-alone offence However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the impugned A of the IPC since, inter alia, the original criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 in the said case had been settled and withdrawn by the rival parties. It is for the High Court, while exercising its innate plenary powers under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023/428 of Cr.P.C., 1973, to tiocinate that it should not apply the law in an austere, academic and exacting technical manner, without considering its practical implications. The Law is not merely a set of programmed, nailed-to-the-ground rules, to be enforced, while bearing in mind, that its purpose is to ensure substantive justice between the parties. The statutory A of IPC, when perused in the light of ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Daljit Singh’s case (supra), unequivocally shows that an FIR under Section 174-A of the become liable to be quashed, in case the rival findings made in these judgments/orders. At the same time, it tands clarified that we have not commented on the merits of the IPC is alone, given that it arises out of an original offence in Cr.P.C. is initiated and in the said offence the accused stands, subsequently, acquitted, it would be permissible in law for the Court seized of the trial under such offence, to take note of such a development and treat the same as a ground to draw the proceedings to a close, should such a prayer be made and the circumstances of the case so IPC is an independent, substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation alone offence. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the impugned original criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 It is for the High Court, while exercising its innate plenary powers under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023/428 of Cr.P.C., 1973, to tiocinate that it should not apply the law in an austere, academic and exacting technical manner, without considering its practical implications. rules, to be enforced, while bearing in mind, that The statutory A of IPC, when perused in the light of ratio Singh’s A of the in case the rival AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.23 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- parties have entered into a compromise and such criminal complaint/FIR has been compromised and quas same time, the factum of the criminal complaint/FIR (in furtherance of proceedings whereof) having been compromised/settled, is indubitably, a relevant factor to be considered while dealing with a plea for quashin FIR (as also proceedings emanating therefrom) under Section 174 This fact assumes greater significance considering that the initial proceedings pertain exclusively to a private criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881, which a compoundable offence. Such litigation, especially in the backdrop of original offence having been compromised will have an adverse impact on the overburdened Court complaint has been settled/withdrawn would undermine the legislative intent and distort the remedial nature of Section 138 of NI Act of 1881. It would tantamount to contravening the principles of fairness, proportionality, and justice in criminal proce to unjust outcomes that also contradict the law’s underlined purpose. Therefore, the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction must balance the letter of Law with its spirit, ensuring fair and equitable approach underscores Law’s role as an apparatus for fostering societal harmony and addressing the real effectively, rather than mere literal/technical compliance. 9. 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, -13500-2024 parties have entered into a compromise and such criminal complaint/FIR has been compromised and quashed/withdrawn accordingly. However, at the same time, the factum of the criminal complaint/FIR (in furtherance of proceedings whereof) having been compromised/settled, is indubitably, a relevant factor to be considered while dealing with a plea for quashin FIR (as also proceedings emanating therefrom) under Section 174 This fact assumes greater significance considering that the initial proceedings pertain exclusively to a private criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881, which the legislature has expressly classified as a compoundable offence. Such litigation, especially in the backdrop of original offence having been compromised will have an adverse impact on the overburdened Court-dockets. Allowing such prosecution, when initi complaint has been settled/withdrawn would undermine the legislative intent and distort the remedial nature of Section 138 of NI Act of 1881. It would tantamount to contravening the principles of fairness, proportionality, and justice in criminal proceedings. A literal interpretation may sometimes lead to unjust outcomes that also contradict the law’s underlined purpose. Therefore, the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction must balance the letter of Law with its spirit, ensuring fair and equitable approach underscores Law’s role as an apparatus for fostering societal harmony and addressing the real-world complexities, efficaciously as also effectively, rather than mere literal/technical compliance. The inherent jurisdiction unde 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, 7 parties have entered into a compromise and such criminal complaint/FIR has hed/withdrawn accordingly. However, at the same time, the factum of the criminal complaint/FIR (in furtherance of proceedings whereof) having been compromised/settled, is indubitably, a relevant factor to be considered while dealing with a plea for quashing of an FIR (as also proceedings emanating therefrom) under Section 174-A of IPC. This fact assumes greater significance considering that the initial proceedings pertain exclusively to a private criminal complaint under the legislature has expressly classified as a compoundable offence. Such litigation, especially in the backdrop of original offence having been compromised will have an adverse impact on dockets. Allowing such prosecution, when initi complaint has been settled/withdrawn would undermine the legislative intent and distort the remedial nature of Section 138 of NI Act of 1881. It would tantamount to contravening the principles of fairness, proportionality, and edings. A literal interpretation may sometimes lead to unjust outcomes that also contradict the law’s underlined purpose. Therefore, the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction must balance the letter of Law with its spirit, ensuring fair and equitable results. This approach underscores Law’s role as an apparatus for fostering societal world complexities, efficaciously as also effectively, rather than mere literal/technical compliance. 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, parties have entered into a compromise and such criminal complaint/FIR has hed/withdrawn accordingly. However, at the same time, the factum of the criminal complaint/FIR (in furtherance of proceedings whereof) having been compromised/settled, is indubitably, a g of an A of IPC. This fact assumes greater significance considering that the initial proceedings pertain exclusively to a private criminal complaint under the legislature has expressly classified as a compoundable offence. Such litigation, especially in the backdrop of original offence having been compromised will have an adverse impact on dockets. Allowing such prosecution, when initial complaint has been settled/withdrawn would undermine the legislative intent and distort the remedial nature of Section 138 of NI Act of 1881. It would tantamount to contravening the principles of fairness, proportionality, and edings. A literal interpretation may sometimes lead to unjust outcomes that also contradict the law’s underlined purpose. Therefore, the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction must balance the results. This approach underscores Law’s role as an apparatus for fostering societal world complexities, efficaciously as also r 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, AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.23 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- the High Cou recognizing the continuation thereof would be non the given circumstances. The inherent powers of a High Court are powers which are incidental replete powers, which if did not so 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 construed with the widest possible amplitude. These inherent powers are in consonance with the nature of a High Cou fact been, invested with power(s) to maintain its authority to prevent the process of law/Courts being obstructed or abused. It is a trite posits of jurisprudence that though laws attempt to deal with all cases that may ari the infinite variety of circumstances which shape events and the imperfections of language make it impossible to lay down provisions capable of governing every case, which in fact arises. A High Court which exists for the furtherance of justice in an i therefore, have unfettered power(s) to deal with situations which, though not expressly provided for by the law, need to be dealt with, to prevent injustice or the abuse of the process of law and Courts. The juridical basis of plenary power(s) is the authority; in fact the seminal duty and responsibility of a High Court; to uphold, to protect and to fulfill the judicial function of administering justice, in accordance with law, in a regular, orderly and effective manner. peerless powers, which a High Court may draw upon as necessary whenever -13500-2024 the High Court may intervene to quash the criminal proceedings, recognizing the continuation thereof would be non the given circumstances. The inherent powers of a High Court are powers which are incidental replete powers, which if did not so 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 nt attribute. Without such power(s), a High Court would have form but lack the substance. These powers of a High Court construed with the widest possible amplitude. These inherent powers are in consonance with the nature of a High Cou fact been, invested with power(s) to maintain its authority to prevent the process of law/Courts being obstructed or abused. It is a trite posits of jurisprudence that though laws attempt to deal with all cases that may ari the infinite variety of circumstances which shape events and the imperfections of language make it impossible to lay down provisions capable of governing every case, which in fact arises. A High Court which exists for the furtherance of justice in an i therefore, have unfettered power(s) to deal with situations which, though not expressly provided for by the law, need to be dealt with, to prevent injustice or the abuse of the process of law and Courts. The juridical basis of plenary power(s) is the authority; in fact the seminal duty and responsibility of a High Court; to uphold, to protect and to fulfill the judicial function of administering justice, in accordance with law, in a regular, orderly and effective manner. In other words; Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 reflects peerless powers, which a High Court may draw upon as necessary whenever 8 rt 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-blood, its very essence, its nt 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 in fact been, invested with power(s) to maintain its authority to prevent the process of law/Courts being obstructed or abused. It is a trite posits of jurisprudence that though laws attempt to deal with all cases that may ari the infinite variety of circumstances which shape events and the imperfections of language make it impossible to lay down provisions capable of governing every case, which in fact arises. A High Court which exists for the furtherance of justice in an indefatigable manner, should therefore, have unfettered power(s) to deal with situations which, though not expressly provided for by the law, need to be dealt with, to prevent injustice or the abuse of the process of law and Courts. The juridical basis of these plenary power(s) is the authority; in fact the seminal duty and responsibility of a High Court; to uphold, to protect and to fulfill the judicial function of administering justice, in accordance with law, in a regular, orderly and In other words; Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 reflects peerless powers, which a High Court may draw upon as necessary whenever rt may intervene to quash the criminal proceedings, productive and unjust in the given circumstances. The inherent powers of a High Court are powers 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 blood, its very essence, its nt attribute. Without such power(s), a High Court would have form hence deserve to be construed with the widest possible amplitude. These inherent powers are in rt which ought to be, and has in fact been, invested with power(s) to maintain its authority to prevent the process of law/Courts being obstructed or abused. It is a trite posits of jurisprudence that though laws attempt to deal with all cases that may arise, the infinite variety of circumstances which shape events and the imperfections of language make it impossible to lay down provisions capable of governing every case, which in fact arises. A High Court which ndefatigable manner, should therefore, have unfettered power(s) to deal with situations which, though not expressly provided for by the law, need to be dealt with, to prevent injustice these plenary power(s) is the authority; in fact the seminal duty and responsibility of a High Court; to uphold, to protect and to fulfill the judicial function of administering justice, in accordance with law, in a regular, orderly and In other words; Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 reflects peerless powers, which a High Court may draw upon as necessary whenever AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.23 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- it is just and equitable to do so, in particular to ensure the observance of the due process of law, to prevent vexation or oppressio substantial justice between the parties and to secure the ends of justice. 10. circumstances of the case in hand; especially the original offence being an offence under Section 1 original offence alleged to have been committed in the year 201 matter of the original offence having been settled amicably between the parties and the criminal complaint under Section 138 of Nego Instruments Act, 1881 having been withdrawn on the basis of such settlement/compromise; this Court deems it appropriate that the impugned FIR as also all proceedings emanating therefrom deserve to be quashed. 11. (i) registered at Police Station Karnal Civil, Karnal (Haryana) as also order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the trial Court whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in criminal compla titled as “ Instrument Act, 1881 quashed. (ii) July 23, 202 Ajay -13500-2024 it is just and equitable to do so, in particular to ensure the observance of the due process of law, to prevent vexation or oppressio substantial justice between the parties and to secure the ends of justice. Keeping in view the entirety of the attending facts and circumstances of the case in hand; especially the original offence being an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, the original offence alleged to have been committed in the year 201 matter of the original offence having been settled amicably between the parties and the criminal complaint under Section 138 of Nego Instruments Act, 1881 having been withdrawn on the basis of such settlement/compromise; this Court deems it appropriate that the impugned FIR as also all proceedings emanating therefrom deserve to be quashed. It is, hence, directed as under: The FIR No.0261 dated 12.02.2023 under Section 174 registered at Police Station Karnal Civil, Karnal (Haryana) as also order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the trial Court whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in criminal compla titled as “Cholamandlam vs. Sanjeet” filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 9 it is just and equitable to do so, in particular to ensure the observance of the due process of law, to prevent vexation or oppression, to do justice nay substantial justice between the parties and to secure the ends of justice. Keeping in view the entirety of the attending facts and circumstances of the case in hand; especially the original offence being an 38 of Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, the original offence alleged to have been committed in the year 2019, the subject matter of the original offence having been settled amicably between the parties and the criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 having been withdrawn on the basis of such settlement/compromise; this Court deems it appropriate that the impugned FIR as also all proceedings emanating therefrom deserve to be quashed. It is, hence, directed as under: FIR No.0261 dated 12.02.2023 under Section 174-A of IPC registered at Police Station Karnal Civil, Karnal (Haryana) as also order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the trial Court whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in criminal complaint No.NACT-251 of 2019 ” filed under Section 138 of Negotiable and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom stand All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No it is just and equitable to do so, in particular to ensure the observance of the nay Keeping in view the entirety of the attending facts and circumstances of the case in hand; especially the original offence being an 38 of Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, the , the subject matter of the original offence having been settled amicably between the tiable Instruments Act, 1881 having been withdrawn on the basis of such settlement/compromise; this Court deems it appropriate that the impugned A of IPC registered at Police Station Karnal Civil, Karnal (Haryana) as also order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the trial Court whereby the petitioner was 251 of 2019 ” filed under Section 138 of Negotiable stand AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.23 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document