CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 132 Paramjit Singh @ Kaka State of Punjab CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR No.92 dated 06.09.2021 under Section 229-A of the IPC registered at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala as well as all subsequent proceedings and order 2. thus:- -15467-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Paramjit Singh @ Kaka V/s Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Ms. Ruby Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG Punjab. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR No.92 dated 06.09.2021 under Section A of the IPC registered at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala as well as all subsequent proceedings and order The impugned FIR (as set out in the petition in hand) reads “I have inspected the record of police station and found that accused Paramjit Singh @ Kaka Son of Jagdev Singh resident of Zaid Police station Begowal District Kapurthala has been declared proclaimed offender in FIR No.37 dated 22.05.2014 U/s 21 station Bholath District Kapurthala by the Court of Sh. Jatinder Walia ASJ Kapurthala vide order dated 24 accused Paramjit Singh alias Kaka has committed offence under section 229-A IPC and case has been registered. The investigation of the case is handed over to SI Baljinder Singh through Post. Control Room is intimated. Re 06.09.2021.” IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-15467-2025 Date of decision: 01.09.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG Punjab. ***** Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR No.92 dated 06.09.2021 under Section A of the IPC registered at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala as well as all subsequent proceedings and orders arising therefrom. The impugned FIR (as set out in the petition in hand) reads I have inspected the record of police station and found that accused Paramjit Singh @ Kaka Son of Jagdev Singh resident of Zaid Police apurthala has been declared proclaimed offender in FIR No.37 dated 22.05.2014 U/s 21-61-85 NDPS Act Police station Bholath District Kapurthala by the Court of Sh. Jatinder Walia ASJ Kapurthala vide order dated 24-08-2017. It is very much clear that d Paramjit Singh alias Kaka has committed offence under section A IPC and case has been registered. The investigation of the case is handed over to SI Baljinder Singh-136/Kapu. Special Reports will be sent through Post. Control Room is intimated. Registered Report No.26 dated 1 01.09.2025 Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR No.92 dated 06.09.2021 under Section A of the IPC registered at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala as The impugned FIR (as set out in the petition in hand) reads I have inspected the record of police station and found that accused Paramjit Singh @ Kaka Son of Jagdev Singh resident of Zaid Police apurthala has been declared proclaimed 85 NDPS Act Police station Bholath District Kapurthala by the Court of Sh. Jatinder Walia 2017. It is very much clear that d Paramjit Singh alias Kaka has committed offence under section A IPC and case has been registered. The investigation of the case is 136/Kapu. Special Reports will be sent gistered Report No.26 dated AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 3. impugned FIR merely on account of the absence of the petitioner during the pendency of trial in FIR No. the NDPS Act and Section 91(1) of the Excise Act. According to learned counsel, the substantive trial arising out of the FIR No.37 has already culminated in clean acquittal of the petit 02.04.2024, wherein all prosecution witnesses stood examined petitioner judgment has attained finality as no appeal or revision has been preferred against the sa been acquitted of the principal offences in the main case, the ancillary proceedings under Section 229 has been further iterated that once the main tr the continuation of collateral or consequential proceedings is unwarranted and the same deserves to be quashed. arguments, 4. PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Kapurthala, Punjab, behalf of State of Punjab tandem with this reply and has opposed the petition in hand. 5. persued the paper 6. petition is as to whether the impugned FIR (as also proceedings arising -15467-2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner has impugned FIR is wholly misconceived and unsustainable as the same arose merely on account of the absence of the petitioner during the pendency of in FIR No.37 dated 22.05.2014 registered under Sections 21, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act and Section 91(1) of the Excise Act. According to learned counsel, the substantive trial arising out of the FIR No.37 has already culminated in clean acquittal of the petit 02.04.2024, wherein all prosecution witnesses stood examined petitioner stands exonerated of all the charges. judgment has attained finality as no appeal or revision has been preferred against the same. Learned counsel has iterated that once the petitioner has been acquitted of the principal offences in the main case, the ancillary proceedings under Section 229-A of IPC cannot survive independently. It has been further iterated that once the main tr the continuation of collateral or consequential proceedings is unwarranted and the same deserves to be quashed. arguments, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for. Referring to short reply by way of an affidavit of PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Kapurthala, Punjab, behalf of State of Punjab, learned State counsel tandem with this reply and has opposed the petition in hand. 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 arising Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the is wholly misconceived and unsustainable as the same arose merely on account of the absence of the petitioner during the pendency of registered under Sections 21, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act and Section 91(1) of the Excise Act. According to learned counsel, the substantive trial arising out of the FIR No.37 has already culminated in clean acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment dated 02.04.2024, wherein all prosecution witnesses stood examined and exonerated of all the charges. Furthermore, the said judgment has attained finality as no appeal or revision has been preferred me. Learned counsel has iterated that once the petitioner has been acquitted of the principal offences in the main case, the ancillary A of IPC cannot survive independently. It has been further iterated that once the main trial stands decided on merits, the continuation of collateral or consequential proceedings is unwarranted and the same deserves to be quashed. On the strength of aforesaid is entreated for. eply by way of an affidavit of Karnail Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Kapurthala, Punjab, , learned State counsel has raised submission in tandem with this reply and has opposed the petition in hand. 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 2 iterated that the is wholly misconceived and unsustainable as the same arose merely on account of the absence of the petitioner during the pendency of registered under Sections 21, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act and Section 91(1) of the Excise Act. According to learned counsel, the substantive trial arising out of the FIR No.37 has already ioner vide judgment dated and the he said judgment has attained finality as no appeal or revision has been preferred me. Learned counsel has iterated that once the petitioner has been acquitted of the principal offences in the main case, the ancillary A of IPC cannot survive independently. It ial stands decided on merits, the continuation of collateral or consequential proceedings is unwarranted aforesaid Karnail Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Kapurthala, Punjab, on has raised submission in 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- therefrom) under Section factual matrix of the present case. 7. as Sanjeet vs. State of Haryana and another dealing with the issue of quashing of an FIR under Section 174 arising out of a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act -15467-2025 therefrom) under Section 229-A of the IPC deserves to be quashed in the factual matrix of the present case. This Court in a judgment passed in CRM Sanjeet vs. State of Haryana and another dealing with the issue of quashing of an FIR under Section 174 out of a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; has held as under: “6. The seminal question that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned FIR (as also proceedings arising therefrom) under Section 174-A of the IPC deserves to be quashed in the factual matrix of the present case. 7. At this juncture; it would be apposite to refer herein t Court passed in CRM-M-51049-2019 titled as Mohammad Hanif Attari vs. State of Haryana, decided on 06.07.2023; relevant whereof 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 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 Court in CRM 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 f 15.02.2017 filed under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sector subsequent proceedings arising thereof as well as order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the trial Court vi 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) of the IPC deserves to be quashed in the passed in CRM-M-13500-2024 titled Sanjeet vs. State of Haryana and another, decided on 23.07.2025, while dealing with the issue of quashing of an FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC out of a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable . The seminal question that arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether the impugned FIR (as also proceedings arising therefrom) A of the IPC deserves to be quashed in the factual matrix At this juncture; it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of this 2019 titled as Mohammad Hanif Attari vs. State of Haryana, decided on 06.07.2023; relevant whereof reads as under: In view the fact that after the principle proceedings in which the petitioner declared Proclaimed Offender stand concluded, the question would arise is: 'whether in the given circumstances, proceedings under Section 174A of the IPC pursuant to FIR No.425 dated 17th of November, 2017 can be 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 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." 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) 3 of the IPC deserves to be quashed in the titled 23.07.2025, while A of the IPC out of a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable in the present petition is as to whether the impugned FIR (as also proceedings arising therefrom) A of the IPC deserves to be quashed in the factual matrix o a judgment of this 2019 titled as Mohammad Hanif Attari vs. State of Haryana, decided on 06.07.2023; relevant whereof reads as under: In view the fact that after the principle proceedings in which the petitioner declared Proclaimed Offender stand concluded, the question would arise is: 'whether in the given circumstances, proceedings under Section 174A of the IPC pursuant to FIR No.425 dated 17th of November, 2017 can be ibid is no more res integra and already stands 2018 titled as "Baldev Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and another" vide order dated or 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 de which a direction was 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) AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -15467-2025 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 between the parties, therefore, continuation of 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 all 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 pro 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 fo 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 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 circumstan 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 shall stand quashed." 7.1. More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Daljit Singh vs. State of Haryana and Another, Criminal Appeal No.4359 of 2024 decided on 02.01.20 “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 riminal) 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 ent 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 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 More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Daljit Singh vs. State of Haryana and Another, Criminal Appeal decided on 02.01.2025; has held that: 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 of law. Then, can the prosecution still proceed against such a 4 riminal) 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 ent between 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 owed 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 ceedings arising ordinate Bench in the "Ashok Madaan v. State of Haryana and another" reported as 2020 (4) RCR (Criminal) 87, r 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 in view the fact that the present FIR 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 ces, 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 well as consequential proceedings More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Daljit Singh vs. State of Haryana and Another, 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 of law. Then, can the prosecution still proceed against such a AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -15467-2025 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 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) Verma v. State 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2619 State GNCT of Delhi & Anr. 17th May, 2022 For the reasons afore 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 in 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 s xxxxxxxxx” 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 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2619; Sameena & Anr. v. State GNCT of Delhi & Anr. Crl. M.C. No.1470 of 2021, Dated the reasons afore-stated, we agree with the findings made in these judgments/orders. At the same time, it 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 in nnection 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 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. 5 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 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 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 Sameena & Anr. v. Crl. M.C. No.1470 of 2021, Dated stated, we agree with the findings made in these judgments/orders. At the same time, it 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 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. AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- dealing with an FIR under Section 174 complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, would apply with out of a FIR under Section NDPS Act. 8. powers under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023/428 of Cr.P.C., 1973 ratiocinate that it should not apply the law in a exacting The law is not merely a set of applied without context. It purpose is to ensure substantive justice between the parties. provision of Section decidendi of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (supra) and of this Court in the case of that an FIR under Section liable to be quashed culminated in acquittal. However, at the same time, the factum of acquittal and the said judgment factor to be considered while dealing with a plea for also proceedings emanating therefrom) under Section -15467-2025 However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the impugned FIR (therein) under Section 174-A of the IPC since, inter alia, the 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.” The above principle(s) of law dealing with an FIR under Section 174- complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, would apply with same vigour to an FIR under Section 229 out of a FIR under Section NDPS Act. It is for the High Court, while exercising its innate plenary powers under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023/428 of Cr.P.C., 1973 ratiocinate that it should not apply the law in a technical manner, without considering its practical implications. aw is not merely a set of programmed, applied without context. It must be enforced purpose is to ensure substantive justice between the parties. provision of Section 229-A of IPC, when perused in the light of ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in and of this Court in the case of Sanjeet FIR under Section 229-A of the IPC does not liable to be quashed, in case the main trial has been decided on merits and culminated in acquittal. However, at the same time, the factum of acquittal and the said judgment having attained finality, is indubitably, a relevant factor to be considered while dealing with a plea for also proceedings emanating therefrom) under Section However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the impugned FIR A of the IPC since, inter alia, the original criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, case had been settled and withdrawn by the rival of law; though held in the realm of -A of IPC arising out of criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1880 vigour to an FIR under Section 229-A of IPC arising It is for the High Court, while exercising its innate plenary powers under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023/428 of Cr.P.C., 1973, ratiocinate that it should not apply the law in an austere, academic and without considering its practical implications. programmed, nailed-to-the-ground rules, to be must be enforced, while bearing in mind, that its purpose is to ensure substantive justice between the parties. The statutory of IPC, when perused in the light of ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Daljit Singh Sanjeet (supra) unequivocally shows of the IPC does not proprio vigore become main trial has been decided on merits and culminated in acquittal. However, at the same time, the factum of acquittal attained finality, 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 229-A of IPC. This 6 However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the impugned FIR original criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, case had been settled and withdrawn by the rival though held in the realm of A of IPC arising out of criminal 1880; A of IPC arising It is for the High Court, while exercising its innate plenary to n austere, academic and without considering its practical implications. to be that its The statutory of IPC, when perused in the light of ratio aljit Singh unequivocally shows become main trial has been decided on merits and culminated in acquittal. However, at the same time, the factum of acquittal attained finality, is indubitably, a relevant of an FIR (as This AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- fact assumes greater significance considering that been decided on merits and culminated in acquittal, the ancillary proceedings which have no in continue, as the same would amount to abuse of the process of law. litigation, especially in the backdrop of result in acquittal dockets. Allowing such prosecution, when acquittal principles of fairness, proportionality, and justice in criminal proceedings. literal interpretation may sometimes lead to unjust outcomes that contradict the law’s underlying inherent jurisdiction must balance the letter of fair and equitable results. apparatus complexities, 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, of criminal jurisprudence that once the main trial has culminated in acquittal, the ancilla independently subsist and their continuance would only amount to an abuse of the process of law. which are incidental replete powers, which if did would be obliged to sit still and helplessly see the process of law and Courts -15467-2025 fact assumes greater significance considering that been decided on merits and culminated in acquittal, the ancillary proceedings which have no independent existence, cannot be permitted to continue, as the same would amount to abuse of the process of law. litigation, especially in the backdrop of main trial having been decided and result in acquittal, will have an adverse impact on the overbur dockets. Allowing such prosecution, when acquittal would undermine the legislative intent principles of fairness, proportionality, and justice in criminal proceedings. literal interpretation may sometimes lead to unjust outcomes that contradict the law’s underlying purpose. Therefore, the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction must balance the letter of fair and equitable results. This approach underscores apparatus for fostering societal harmony and addressing complexities, efficaciously as also effectively, literal/technical compliance. The inherent jurisdiction under Sectio 2023/Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is primarily aimed at preventing abuse of judicial process and securing the ends of justice. Thus, of criminal jurisprudence that once the main trial has culminated in acquittal, the ancillary proceedings which derive their foundation therefrom cannot independently subsist and their continuance would only amount to an abuse of the process of law. The inherent powers of a High Court are powers which are incidental replete powers, which if did would be obliged to sit still and helplessly see the process of law and Courts fact assumes greater significance considering that once the main trial has been decided on merits and culminated in acquittal, the ancillary dependent existence, cannot be permitted to continue, as the same would amount to abuse of the process of law. Such main trial having been decided and will have an adverse impact on the overburdened Court dockets. Allowing such prosecution, when the main trial has resulted would undermine the legislative intent; thereby contravening principles of fairness, proportionality, and justice in criminal proceedings. literal interpretation may sometimes lead to unjust outcomes that also purpose. Therefore, the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction must balance the letter of Law with its spirit, ensuring This approach underscores Law’s role as societal harmony and addressing the real-world efficaciously as also effectively, rather than mere 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, it is a settled can of criminal jurisprudence that once the main trial has culminated in acquittal, ry proceedings which derive their foundation therefrom cannot independently subsist and their continuance would only amount to an abuse 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 7 once the main trial has been decided on merits and culminated in acquittal, the ancillary dependent existence, cannot be permitted to Such main trial having been decided and dened Court- ed in thereby contravening the principles of fairness, proportionality, and justice in criminal proceedings. A also purpose. Therefore, the High Court under its aw with its spirit, ensuring aw’s role as an world rather than mere n 528 BNSS, 2023/Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is primarily aimed at preventing abuse of it is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that once the main trial has culminated in acquittal, ry proceedings which derive their foundation therefrom cannot independently subsist and their continuance would only amount to an abuse The inherent powers of a High Court are powers not so exist, the Court would be obliged to sit still and helplessly see the process of law and Courts AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 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 H 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 posit of jurisprudence that though laws attempt to deal with all cases that m 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 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 bas 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 man peerless powers, which a High Court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just and equitable to do so, in particular to ensure the observance of the due process of law, to prevent vexation or opp substantial justice between the parties and to secure the ends of justice. -15467-2025 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 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 posit of jurisprudence that though laws attempt to deal with all cases that m 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 bas 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 it is just and equitable to do so, in particular to ensure the observance of the due process of law, to prevent vexation or opp substantial justice between the parties and to secure the ends of justice. 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 immanent 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 igh 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 posit 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 n 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 ner. In other words; Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 reflects peerless powers, which a High Court may draw upon as necessary whenever 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. 8 being abused for the purposes of injustice. In other words; such power(s) is blood, its very essence, its immanent 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 igh 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 posit of ay 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 n 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 is 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 ner. In other words; Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 reflects peerless powers, which a High Court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just and equitable to do so, in particular to ensure the observance of the nay AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 10. circumstances of the case in hand been acquitted offence alleged to have been committed in the year purpose seeming to be impugned FIR also all proceedings emanating therefrom deserve to be quashed. 11. (i) IPC registered at Police Station Bholath, Distr subsequent proceedings and orders arising therefrom (ii) September 01 Ajay -15467-2025 Keeping in view the entirety of the attending facts and circumstances of the case in hand; especially been acquitted of the offence under Section the NDPS Act offence alleged to have been committed in the year seeming to be arising by continuation of the proceedings impugned FIR; this Court deems it appropriate that the im also all proceedings emanating therefrom deserve to be quashed. It view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: The FIR No.92 dated 06.09.2021 under Section 229 IPC registered at Police Station Bholath, Distr subsequent proceedings and orders arising therefrom All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. September 01, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Keeping in view the entirety of the attending facts and especially the petitioner (herein) having of the offence under Section the NDPS Act, the original offence alleged to have been committed in the year 2014 and no useful continuation of the proceedings qua ; this Court deems it appropriate that the impugned FIR as also all proceedings emanating therefrom deserve to be quashed. view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: FIR No.92 dated 06.09.2021 under Section 229-A of the IPC registered at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala as well as all subsequent proceedings and orders arising therefrom stand quashed. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 9 Keeping in view the entirety of the attending facts and petitioner (herein) having , the original 2014 and no useful qua the pugned FIR as A of the ict Kapurthala as well as all AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document