CRM IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 208-2 Krishan Singh Shekhawat State of Haryana CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No.937 dated 23.05.2019 A of IPC registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram as vide order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the trial Court the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender in complaint case No.8720 of 2016 titled as “Pawan vs. Krish Instrument Act, 1881. 2. thus:- 3. impugned FIR, has its genesis, in a criminal complaint filed against the CRM-M-38620-2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Krishan Singh Shekhawat V/s State of Haryana CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET Mr. Ujwal Anand, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No.937 dated 23.05.2019 A of IPC registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram as vide order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the trial Court the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender in complaint case No.8720 of 2016 titled as Pawan vs. Krishan Singh” filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The impugned FIR (as set out in the petition in hand) reads “JMIC/GURUGRAM ID NO. HR stated order was received from court through post a 174-A IPC, Police Station Shivaji Nagar has been registered. The copies of the FIR as per rules is being sent to the Ld. Illaqa Magistrate as well as Senior Officer. XXX. The abovestated order has been registered in presence of HC Rajesh.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned FIR, has its genesis, in a criminal complaint filed against the 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-38620-2023 Date of decision: 08.07.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Ujwal Anand, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. ***** Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No.937 dated 23.05.2019 under Section 174 A of IPC registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram as vide order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the trial Court the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender in complaint case No.8720 of 2016 titled as ” filed under Section 138 of Negotiable The impugned FIR (as set out in the petition in hand) reads JMIC/GURUGRAM ID NO. HR-0424 Today, Police Station- The above stated order was received from court through post and FIR under Section A IPC, Police Station Shivaji Nagar has been registered. The copies of the FIR as per rules is being sent to the Ld. Illaqa Magistrate as well as Senior Officer. XXX. The abovestated order has been registered in Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned FIR, has its genesis, in a criminal complaint filed against the .2025 Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., under Section 174- A of IPC registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram as vide order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the trial Court the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender in complaint case No.8720 of 2016 titled as ” filed under Section 138 of Negotiable The impugned FIR (as set out in the petition in hand) reads The above nd FIR under Section A IPC, Police Station Shivaji Nagar has been registered. The copies of the FIR as per rules is being sent to the Ld. Illaqa Magistrate as well as Senior Officer. XXX. The abovestated order has been registered in Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned FIR, has its genesis, in a criminal complaint filed against the AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.08 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM 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 petit 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 Ac 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 qua the impugned FIR. To buttress this aspect of his argument, learned counsel for the pet by the concerned Judicial Magistrate which reads thus: CRM-M-38620-2023 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 illegal and against the mandatory provisions of law. It has been further iterated that the criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Ac 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 counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 19.03.2020 passed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate which reads thus: “Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that keeping in view the urgency of the matter and the consent of both the parties, the present matter may be taken up by the court as the accused wants to make the payment according to the settlement of the parites and thereupon the complainant is ready and willing to withdraw the present case. Heard. The Hon'ble High Court has issued instructi dated 17.03.2020 endorsement no. 506/Spl./Gaz.II.17, whereby all matters before the Subordinates Court are to be adjourned beyond 31.03.2020 except where parties by their consent appear before the court and there is urgency involved in the m has appeared alongwith Demand Drafts bearing No. 172759 of Rs. 1,25,000/- and No. 911332 of Rs.3,75,000/ accepted by the complainant vide separate statement of both parties. Copy of Demand Drafts are placed on record. As the matter is of urgent nature and the both parties have consented before the court to appear in this case and in view of statement suffered by the complainant whereby he has accepted the abovesaid Demand Drafts and stated that he seeks to withdraw t 2 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. ioner 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 continuation of the proceedings the impugned FIR. To buttress this aspect of his argument, learned itioner has relied upon the order dated 19.03.2020 passed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate which reads thus: Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that keeping in view the urgency of the matter and the consent of both nt matter may be taken up by the court as the accused wants to make the payment according to the settlement of the parites and thereupon the complainant is ready and willing to withdraw the present case. Heard. The Hon'ble High Court has issued instructions vide order dated 17.03.2020 endorsement no. 506/Spl./Gaz.II.17, whereby all matters before the Subordinates Court are to be adjourned beyond 31.03.2020 except where parties by their consent appear before the court and there is urgency involved in the matter. Today, accused has appeared alongwith Demand Drafts bearing No. 172759 of Rs. and No. 911332 of Rs.3,75,000/- which have been accepted by the complainant vide separate statement of both parties. Copy of Demand Drafts are placed on record. As the matter is of urgent nature and the both parties have consented before the court to appear in this case and in view of statement suffered by the complainant whereby he has accepted the abovesaid Demand Drafts and stated that he seeks to withdraw t 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. ioner 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 t, 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 itioner has relied upon the order dated 19.03.2020 passed Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that keeping in view the urgency of the matter and the consent of both nt matter may be taken up by the court as the accused wants to make the payment according to the settlement of the parites and thereupon the complainant is ready and willing to ons vide order dated 17.03.2020 endorsement no. 506/Spl./Gaz.II.17, whereby all matters before the Subordinates Court are to be adjourned beyond 31.03.2020 except where parties by their consent appear before the atter. Today, accused has appeared alongwith Demand Drafts bearing No. 172759 of Rs. which have been accepted by the complainant vide separate statement of both As the matter is of urgent nature and the both parties have consented before the court to appear in this case and in view of statement suffered by the complainant whereby he has accepted the abovesaid Demand Drafts and stated that he seeks to withdraw the AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.08 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM petitioner has pre 4. Commissioner of Police City, Gurugram been filed in Court. Learned State counsel has raised submission in 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 a therefrom) under Section 174 factual matrix of the present case. 7. judgment of this Court passed in Hanif Attari vs. State of Haryana, reads as under: CRM-M-38620-2023 present complaint, the present complaint is herey dismissed as withdrawn. The complainant is identified by his counsel. At this stage, it has come to my knowledge that this file was inadvertently not restored to its original number when the application was filed by the accused for compromise. However, now file be restored to its original number. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after due compliance. On the strength of above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed for grant of petition in hand. Reply by way of an affidavit of Commissioner of Police City, Gurugram, on behalf of State of been filed in Court. Learned State counsel has raised submission in tandem his 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 a 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 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 3 present complaint, the present complaint is herey dismissed as withdrawn. The complainant is identified by his counsel. At this stage, it has come to my knowledge that this file was inadvertently not restored to its original number when the application was filed by the accused for compromise. However, now file be restored to its original number. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after due compliance.” On the strength of above arguments, learned counsel for the ssed for grant of petition in hand. Reply by way of an affidavit of Mukesh Kumar, HPS Assistant , on behalf of State of Haryana been filed in Court. Learned State counsel has raised submission in tandem his 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 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 e is: 'whether in the given circumstances, proceedings under 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 te Bench of this Court in CRM-M-43813-2018 titled present complaint, the present complaint is herey dismissed as At this stage, it has come to my knowledge that this file was inadvertently not restored to its original number when the application was filed by the accused for compromise. However, now file be restored to its original number. Thereafter, file be On the strength of above arguments, learned counsel for the Mukesh Kumar, HPS Assistant Haryana has been filed in Court. Learned State counsel has raised submission in tandem I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have The seminal question that arises for consideration in the present lso 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 e is: 'whether in the given circumstances, proceedings under 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.08 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM CRM-M-38620-2023 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 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 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 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 Sector-5, Panchkula and all other 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 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 4 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) 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 ble 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 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, rned 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 wever, 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 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 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 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 (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 ble settlement 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 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 subsequent proceedings arising ordinate Bench in the "Ashok Madaan v. State of Haryana and another" reported as 2020 (4) RCR (Criminal) 87, rned 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 wever, 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.08 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM 7.1. as Daljit Singh vs. State of Haryana and Another No.4359 of 2024 decided on 02.01.2025; has held tha CRM-M-38620-2023 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 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 tha “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 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 does not do so, this Section comes into play; (ii) What further flows from the language employed is that the instance of non-appearance becomes an infraction of the Section, and therefore, prosecution therefor would be independent of Section 82, Cr.P.C. being in effect; (iii) 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 findings made in these judgments/orders. At the same time, it 5 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 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: Now, what happens if the status under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is nullified i.e., the person subjected to such proclamation, by virtue of subsequent developments is no longer required to be presented before a Court of law. Then, can the prosecution still proceed against such a person for having not appeared before a Court during the time that the process was in effect. The answer is in the affirmative. We say so for the 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 o 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 findings made in these judgments/orders. At the same time, it 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 Faridabad, as well as consequential 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 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 , 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 o 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 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 findings made in these judgments/orders. At the same time, it AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.08 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM 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 practi 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 decidendi of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case (supra), unequivocally shows that a IPC does not CRM-M-38620-2023 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 ratiocinate that it should not apply the law in an austere, academic and exacting technical manner, without considering its practi 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. on 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 6 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 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, nailed-to-the-ground rules, to be applied without context. It must 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 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 ratiocinate that it should not apply the law in an austere, academic and cal implications. rules, to be applied without context. It must be enforced, while bearing in mind, that The statutory A of IPC, when perused in the light of ratio Daljit Singh’s A of the in case the rival AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.08 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM 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 wh relevant factor to be considered while dealing with a plea for quashing of an FIR (as also proceedings emanating therefrom) under Section 174 This fact assumes greater significance consid 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 offe the overburdened Court complaint has been settled/withdrawn would undermine the legislative intent and distort the remedial nature of Section 138 of 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 results. This 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 e CRM-M-38620-2023 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 quashing of an FIR (as also proceedings emanating therefrom) under Section 174 This fact assumes greater significance consid 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 initial complaint has been settled/withdrawn would undermine the legislative intent and distort the remedial nature of Section 138 of 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. ore, 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 harmony and addressing the real-world compl 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 7 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 ereof) 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 Section 138 of NI Act, 1881, which the legislature has expressly classified as a compoundable offence. Such litigation, especially in the backdrop of nce 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 justice in criminal proceedings. A literal interpretation may sometimes lead to unjust outcomes that also contradict the law’s underlined purpose. ore, 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 nds of justice. Thus, when the dispute is 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 ereof) having been compromised/settled, is indubitably, a relevant factor to be considered while dealing with a plea for quashing of an A of IPC. ering 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 nce 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 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. ore, 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 exities, efficaciously as also The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, 2023/Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is primarily aimed at preventing abuse of nds of justice. Thus, when the dispute is AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.08 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM essentially personal in nature and a genuine compromise has been reached, 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 exist, the Court would be obliged to sit still and helplessly see the process of law and Courts being abused for the purposes of 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/Court 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 pr 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 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 administering justice, in accordance with law, in a regular, orderly and CRM-M-38620-2023 essentially personal in nature and a genuine compromise has been reached, the High Court may intervene to quash the criminal proceedings, recognizing the continuation thereof would be non he 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 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 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 pr 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 administering justice, in accordance with law, in a regular, orderly and 8 essentially personal in nature and a genuine compromise has been reached, the High Court may intervene to quash the criminal proceedings, recognizing the continuation thereof would be non-productive and unjust in he 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 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 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 s being obstructed or abused. It is a trite posits 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 exists for the furtherance of justice in an indefatigable manner, should therefore, have unfettered power(s) to deal with situations which, though not 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 essentially personal in nature and a genuine compromise has been reached, the High Court may intervene to quash the criminal proceedings, productive and unjust in he 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 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 eserve 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 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 ovisions 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 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 to fulfill the judicial function of administering justice, in accordance with law, in a regular, orderly and AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.08 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM 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 oppression, to do justice 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 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 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 having been withdrawn on the basis of such settlement/compromise; this Court deems it appropriate t FIR as also all proceedings emanating therefrom deserve to be quashed. 11. (i) registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram subsequent proceedings arising therefrom (ii) July 08, 202 Ajay CRM-M-38620-2023 effective manner. In other words; Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 reflects peerless powers, which a High Court may draw upon as necessary whenever 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 substantial justice between the parties and to secure the ends of justice. Keeping in view the entiret 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 er 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 t FIR as also all proceedings emanating therefrom deserve to be quashed. It is, hence, directed as under: The FIR No.937 dated 23.05.2019 under Section 174 registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram subsequent proceedings arising therefrom All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 9 effective manner. In other words; Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 reflects peerless powers, which a High Court may draw upon as necessary whenever 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 offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, the original offence alleged to have been committed in the year 2016, the subject er 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.937 dated 23.05.2019 under Section 174-A of IPC registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No effective manner. In other words; Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 reflects peerless powers, which a High Court may draw upon as necessary whenever just and equitable to do so, in particular to ensure the observance of the nay y 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 , the subject er 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 hat the impugned A of IPC all AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.08 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document