139 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA VIKASH STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Tanmay Kadian, Advocate for the petitioner. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The present petition has been filed quashing of FIR bearing 209 Bharatiya Nyaya Panipat City, District Panipat proceedings emanating dated 20.07.2022 Act, 1881. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner was declared as proclaimed person and subsequent registered on account of non trial Court, which was not deliberate. has been arrived petitioner has paid thereto, the complainant has withdrawn the case pending trial Court. Further, the drill of the mandator has not been followed in the present case, which is pre IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH V/S HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Divyam Singh, Advocate and Mr. Tanmay Kadian, Advocate for the petitioner. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed FIR bearing No.0619 dated 14.12.2024 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Erstwhile Panipat City, District Panipat (Annexure P proceedings emanating from complaint bearing NACT 20.07.2022 registered under Section 138 Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner was declared as proclaimed person and subsequent registered on account of non-appearance of the petitioner before trial Court, which was not deliberate. It is further submitted that a settlement has been arrived at between the petitioner and petitioner has paid the entire cheque amount to thereto, the complainant has withdrawn the case pending Further, the drill of the mandatory provision has not been followed in the present case, which is pre IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-27857-2025 Date of decision: 20.05.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for 14.12.2024 registered under Section (Erstwhile 174-A IPC) at Police Station (Annexure P-3) and all consequential from complaint bearing NACT No.1376 of 2022 138 of Negotiable Instruments Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person and subsequent FIR (supra) was appearance of the petitioner before the learned It is further submitted that a settlement the complainant, whereby, the the entire cheque amount to the complainant. Pursuant thereto, the complainant has withdrawn the case pending before the learned y provision of Section 195 Cr.P.C. has not been followed in the present case, which is pre-requisite for filing of MANISHA 2025.05.20 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-27857 an FIR under Section counsel relies upon the judgment of 2025 titled as CRM-M No.42676 of 2014 State of Haryana and another 2022 titled as Satvir Singh @ decided on 21.12.2022; Warraich vs. State of Punjab and another 3. Notice of motion. 4. Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in appearance before the trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, theref having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure presence. However, 195 Cr.P.C. was not compromise has been effected between the parties. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, it appears that the matter pertaining to of NI Act already stands amount agreed upon to served if proceedings this regard has been Bansal vs. State of Haryana and another 29.01.2019, Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another 2017(3) 27857-2025 2 an FIR under Section 209 BNS, 2023. To support his contentions, learned counsel relies upon the judgments passed by this Court in titled as Jaspreet Singh vs. State of Punjab M No.42676 of 2014 titled as Microqual Techno Limited and others vs. State of Haryana and another decided on 14.09.2015; Satvir Singh @ Satveer Singh and another vs. State of Punjab decided on 21.12.2022; CRM-M No.21433 of 2025 Warraich vs. State of Punjab and another decided on 24.04.2025. Notice of motion. Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in appearance before the trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, theref having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure However, she could not controvert the fact that the drill of Section 195 Cr.P.C. was not followed before registering FIR compromise has been effected between the parties. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing record, it appears that the matter pertaining to already stands settled by the parties as the petitioner has paid the amount agreed upon to the complainant. As such, no useful purpose will be served if proceedings under FIR (supra) are allowed to continue. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgments rendered in, Bansal vs. State of Haryana and another CRM Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another 2017(3) To support his contentions, learned passed by this Court in CRM-M No.22738 Jaspreet Singh vs. State of Punjab decided on 30.04.2025; Microqual Techno Limited and others vs. 14.09.2015; CRM-M No.59788 of Satveer Singh and another vs. State of Punjab M No.21433 of 2025 titled as Smt. Nalima decided on 24.04.2025. Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana, who is present in the Court, State and supports the order passed by the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in appearance before the trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, therefore, having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure his he could not controvert the fact that the drill of Section followed before registering FIR (supra) and the fact that compromise has been effected between the parties. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing record, it appears that the matter pertaining to complaint under Section 138 e parties as the petitioner has paid the . As such, no useful purpose will be are allowed to continue. Reliance in placed upon the judgments rendered in, Baldev Chand CRM-M 43813-2018 decided on Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another 2017(3) MANISHA 2025.05.20 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-27857 L.A.R. 584, Microqual Techno Limited and others Vs. State of Haryana and another 2015 (32) RCR (Crl.) 790 Haryana and another, 2017(3) L.A.R. 555. 6. A Co Haryana and others quashing the FIR under Section 174 Rajbir Sehrawat, has made the following observations: “The ultimate aim, objective and goal of a legal system is to reconcile the social conflicts. Law is required only to ensure people do not have to fight with each other just to right to property, right to life and liberty and to them by the legal system. The civil between two parties, having lesser social harmony or the society given to the parties to course, coming with the criminal only two consequences effect and the extreme punishments, including death penalty for 7. Moreover, the drill of Section 195 Cr.P.C. has not been followed in the present case. A co State of Punjab and another 23.08.2023, speaking through Jus observations: 27857-2025 3 L.A.R. 584, Microqual Techno Limited and others Vs. State of Haryana and another 2015 (32) RCR (Crl.) 790 and Rajneesh Khanna Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2017(3) L.A.R. 555. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Haryana and others CRM-M-19636-2018 decided on 01.08.2018, while quashing the FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC, speak Rajbir Sehrawat, has made the following observations: “The ultimate aim, objective and goal of a legal system is to reconcile the social conflicts. Law is required only to ensure people do not have to fight with each other just to right to property, right to life and liberty and to them by the legal system. The civil between two parties, having lesser social harmony or the society as such. given to the parties to settle their disputes by compromises, of course, coming with certain legal consequences as well. However, the criminal disputes do not necessarily restrict themselves to only two parties to the dispute in t consequences and effect. The criminal acts tend to cast their effect and consequences even upon the society at large. Therefore, law prescribes punishment, severe punishments and the extreme punishments, including death penalty for Moreover, the drill of Section 195 Cr.P.C. has not been followed the present case. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in State of Punjab and another CRM-M No.41656 of 2023 decided on 23.08.2023, speaking through Justice Arun Monga made the following "Invoking criminal liability for the offence under section 174A of IPC: L.A.R. 584, Microqual Techno Limited and others Vs. State of Haryana and Rajneesh Khanna Vs. State of ordinate Bench of this Court in Vikas Gupta vs. State of 2018 decided on 01.08.2018, while A of the IPC, speaking through Justice Rajbir Sehrawat, has made the following observations: “The ultimate aim, objective and goal of a legal system is to reconcile the social conflicts. Law is required only to ensure that people do not have to fight with each other just to protect their right to property, right to life and liberty and other rights secured to them by the legal system. The civil disputes are the conflicts overtones for the social order, as such. Hence absolute freedom is settle their disputes by compromises, of certain legal consequences as well. However, disputes do not necessarily restrict themselves to parties to the dispute in terms of their scope, and effect. The criminal acts tend to cast their consequences even upon the society at large. Therefore, law prescribes punishment, severe punishments and the extreme punishments, including death penalty for criminal acts.” Moreover, the drill of Section 195 Cr.P.C. has not been followed ordinate bench of this Court in Pardeep Kumar vs. M No.41656 of 2023 decided on tice Arun Monga made the following Invoking criminal liability for the offence under section MANISHA 2025.05.20 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-27857 8. In view of the facts Court is of the considered opinion that once the substantive offence has been settled through compromise between the petitioner and FIR (supra) would serve no beneficial purpose to the caus 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and No.0619 dated Sanhita, 2023 (Erstwhile Panipat (Annexure P therefrom, are hereby May 20, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 27857-2025 4 xxx xxx xxx xvii. Once the Court decides to proceed against the petitioner for an offence under Section 174A of the IPC, it is imperative to institute a formal written complaint in the competent jurisdictional court. This imperative arises from section 195 of the Code of which mandates that no Court of any offence punishable under (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate." In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the substantive offence has been settled through compromise between the petitioner and would serve no beneficial purpose to the caus Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and dated 14.12.2024 registered under Section (Erstwhile 174-A IPC) at Police Station Panipat (Annexure P-3) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable xvii. Once the Court decides to proceed against the petitioner for an offence under Section 174A of the imperative to institute a formal written competent jurisdictional court. This imperative arises from the prevailing provision of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which mandates that no Court shall take cognizance offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom administratively subordinate." and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the substantive offence has been settled through compromise between the petitioner and the complainant, the would serve no beneficial purpose to the cause of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR bearing registered under Section 209 Bharatiya Nyaya at Police Station Panipat City, District along with all consequential proceedings arising quashed qua the petitioner. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No e MANISHA 2025.05.20 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment