CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 133 Narinder Singh State of Punjab CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. 2023 with the following substantive prayer: 2. thus:- -36821-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Narinder Singh V/s State of Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Bhullar, Advocate for the respondent. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) The petition in hand has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with the following substantive prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that present petition may kindly be allowed and FIR no 74 dated 27.04.2023 under section 174A IPC registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, District Ludhiana (Annexure P quashed and all subsequent proceeding arising out of this FIR, view of the facts mentioned in the present petition. The impugned FIR (as set out in the petition in hand) reads “One order from the court of Sh. Jasleen Narang CJJD 4924/2022 DOD 16.03.2023 by jora singh age 61 years so of Lal singh resident of House no 128 Sector 39, Urban estate, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana applicant VS Narinder singh son of Late Sucha singh resident (Bholapur) Post office Sahkhana district Ludhiana accused. Application under section 138 NI Act amended upto date read with section 420 IPC PS Moti nagar, Ludhiana has been registered at police station for registration of FIR, the contents of COMA of which are as: CNR PBLD030218212020 CIS no. COMA/4923/2020 Zora singh vs Narinder Singh etc present Sh. Davinder S wahi advocate for the complainant today the case was fixed for recording statement serving official regarding proclamation. Statement of serving official has been recorded today in this regard. 30 days period from the date of proclamation has already been elapsed, but 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36821-2025 Date of decision: 29.07.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Bhullar, Advocate for the respondent. ***** The petition in hand has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with the following substantive prayer: prayed that present petition may kindly be allowed and FIR no 74 dated 27.04.2023 under section 174A IPC registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) may kindly be quashed and all subsequent proceeding arising out of this FIR, keeping in view of the facts mentioned in the present petition.” The impugned FIR (as set out in the petition in hand) reads One order from the court of Sh. Jasleen Narang CJJD 4924/2022 DOD 16.03.2023 by jora singh age 61 years so of Lal singh resident of House no 128 Sector 39, Urban estate, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana applicant VS Narinder singh son of Late Sucha singh resident of village Jhabbewal (Bholapur) Post office Sahkhana district Ludhiana accused. Application under section 138 NI Act amended upto date read with section 420 IPC PS Moti nagar, Ludhiana has been registered at police station for registration tents of COMA of which are as: CNR PBLD030218212020 CIS no. COMA/4923/2020 Zora singh vs Narinder Singh etc present Sh. Davinder S wahi advocate for the complainant today the case was fixed for recording statement serving official regarding proclamation. tatement of serving official has been recorded today in this regard. 30 days period from the date of proclamation has already been elapsed, but .2025 The petition in hand has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, prayed that present petition may kindly be allowed and FIR no 74 dated 27.04.2023 under section 174A IPC registered at Police 1) may kindly be keeping in The impugned FIR (as set out in the petition in hand) reads One order from the court of Sh. Jasleen Narang CJJD 4924/2022 DOD 16.03.2023 by jora singh age 61 years so of Lal singh resident of House no 128 Sector 39, Urban estate, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana applicant VS of village Jhabbewal (Bholapur) Post office Sahkhana district Ludhiana accused. Application under section 138 NI Act amended upto date read with section 420 IPC PS Moti nagar, Ludhiana has been registered at police station for registration tents of COMA of which are as: CNR PBLD030218212020 CIS no. COMA/4923/2020 Zora singh vs Narinder Singh etc present Sh. Davinder S wahi advocate for the complainant today the case was fixed for recording statement serving official regarding proclamation. tatement of serving official has been recorded today in this regard. 30 days period from the date of proclamation has already been elapsed, but AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 3. impugned FIR, has its genesis, in a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner (her 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 argue 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 compromise/ continuation of the proceedings aspect of his argument, learned counsel for the petitione order dated 09.12.2023 passed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate which reads thus: -36821-2025 accused has failed to appear. Further wait is not justified. Therefore, as the offence with which the accused is fall under section 82 (4) Cr.P.C. he is declared a proclaimed person. Complainant is not present I the court today. Counsel for complainant stated at bar that he is not in possession of the list of property of accused. The affidavit of the complainant is already on record, so, recording of evidence u/s 299 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. I these circumstances, the court orders that file be consigned and be revived on application when list Cr.P.C. is filed or when the accused is arrested or appears or surrenders before the court. Necessary information be sent to concerned police quarter with the direction to lodge an FIR against the accused under section 174A IPC date of Sd/- 16.03.2023 Magistrate 1st class UID no PB 00523. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned FIR, has its genesis, in a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner (herein) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, in proceedings whereof the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person & hence the impugned FIR came to be got registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argue 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 ady been withdrawn as the rival parties had entered into a compromise/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 petitione order dated 09.12.2023 passed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate which reads thus: “Present: Sh. Davinder S Wahi Adv, counsel for complainan Sh. Sukhehain Singh Adv, counsel for accused. 2 accused has failed to appear. Further wait is not justified. Therefore, as the offence with which the accused is alleged to have committed does not fall under section 82 (4) Cr.P.C. he is declared a proclaimed person. Complainant is not present I the court today. Counsel for complainant stated at bar that he is not in possession of the list of property of accused. he affidavit of the complainant is already on record, so, recording of evidence u/s 299 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. I these circumstances, the court orders that file be consigned to the judicial record room, Ludhiana and be revived on application when list of property for attachment u/s 83 Cr.P.C. is filed or when the accused is arrested or appears or surrenders before the court. Necessary information be sent to concerned police quarter with the direction to lodge an FIR against the accused under - Jasleen Narang, PCS, Judicial order 16.03.2023 Magistrate 1st class UID no PB 00523.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned FIR, has its genesis, in a criminal complaint filed against the ein) 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 Act, 1881 has ady been withdrawn as the rival parties had entered into a settlement and hence no useful purpose would be served by the impugned FIR. To buttress this aspect of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 09.12.2023 passed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate which Sh. Davinder S Wahi Adv, counsel for complainan Sukhehain Singh Adv, counsel for accused. accused has failed to appear. Further wait is not justified. Therefore, as alleged to have committed does not fall under section 82 (4) Cr.P.C. he is declared a proclaimed person. Complainant is not present I the court today. Counsel for complainant stated at bar that he is not in possession of the list of property of accused. he affidavit of the complainant is already on record, so, recording of evidence u/s 299 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. I these circumstances, the to the judicial record room, Ludhiana of property for attachment u/s 83 Cr.P.C. is filed or when the accused is arrested or appears or surrenders before the court. Necessary information be sent to concerned police quarter with the direction to lodge an FIR against the accused under Jasleen Narang, PCS, Judicial order Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned FIR, has its genesis, in a criminal complaint filed against the ein) 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. d 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 ady been withdrawn as the rival parties had entered into a settlement and hence no useful purpose would be served by the impugned FIR. To buttress this r has relied upon the order dated 09.12.2023 passed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate which Sh. Davinder S Wahi Adv, counsel for complainant AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- petitioner has pressed for grant of petition in hand. 4. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Industrial Area State of Punjab submission in tandem with this reply and has opposed the petition in hand. 5. perused the paper -36821-2025 File taken up in National Lok Adala separately recorded statement, complainant stated to the effect that the matter has been compromised with the accused and today he has received Rs.3.25,000/ accused in the court and as such, he does not want to p further with the present complaint and the same may kindly be dismissed as withdrawn. He further stated that he has filed one another case bearing No.74/2023 under Section 174 P.S Moti Nagar in the court of Ms. Harjinder Kaur, JMIC. Ludhiana against the said accused Narinder Singh is pending for 25.01.2024 and he also undertakes to withraw the said case and making the statement in the said court. He further stated that he has no other cheque except the present cheque of the accused and cheque bearing No.000057 and 000059 of HDFC Bank of the accused are not in his possession if any then he and any other person will not present the above against the accused. On the other hand, vide separately recorded stateme accused stated to the effect that the matter has been compromised with the complainant and today he has paid Rs.3,25,000/ and final payment to the complainant to settle all the dispute with him in the court. In view of the statement, suffere present complaint stands dismissed as withdrawn Parties are bound by their respective statements. File be consigned to judicial record room, forthwith.” On the strength of above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed for grant of petition in hand. Status report by way of an affidavit of Jasbinder Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Industrial Area Punjab has been filed in Court. Learned State counsel has raised submission in tandem with this reply and has opposed the petition in hand. I have heard learned counsel for ed the paper-book. 3 File taken up in National Lok Adalat. Vide separately recorded statement, complainant stated to the effect that the matter has been compromised with the accused and today he has received Rs.3.25,000/- as full and final payment from the accused in the court and as such, he does not want to proceed further with the present complaint and the same may kindly be dismissed as withdrawn. He further stated that he has filed one another case bearing No.74/2023 under Section 174- A of IPC at P.S Moti Nagar in the court of Ms. Harjinder Kaur, JMIC. hiana against the said accused Narinder Singh is pending for 25.01.2024 and he also undertakes to withraw the said case and making the statement in the said court. He further stated that he has no other cheque except the present cheque of the accused and heque bearing No.000057 and 000059 of HDFC Bank of the accused are not in his possession if any then he and any other person will not present the above- said two cheques in the bank On the other hand, vide separately recorded stateme accused stated to the effect that the matter has been compromised with the complainant and today he has paid Rs.3,25,000/- as full and final payment to the complainant to settle all the dispute with In view of the statement, suffered by both the parties, the present complaint stands dismissed as withdrawn Parties are bound by their respective statements. File be consigned to judicial On the strength of above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed for grant of petition in hand. Status report by way of an affidavit of Jasbinder Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana, on behalf of has been filed in Court. 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 t. Vide separately recorded statement, complainant stated to the effect that the matter has been compromised with the accused and today he as full and final payment from the roceed further with the present complaint and the same may kindly be dismissed as withdrawn. He further stated that he has filed one A of IPC at P.S Moti Nagar in the court of Ms. Harjinder Kaur, JMIC. hiana against the said accused Narinder Singh is pending for 25.01.2024 and he also undertakes to withraw the said case and making the statement in the said court. He further stated that he has no other cheque except the present cheque of the accused and heque bearing No.000057 and 000059 of HDFC Bank of the accused are not in his possession if any then he and any other said two cheques in the bank On the other hand, vide separately recorded statement, accused stated to the effect that the matter has been compromised as full and final payment to the complainant to settle all the dispute with d by both the parties, the present complaint stands dismissed as withdrawn Parties are bound by their respective statements. File be consigned to judicial On the strength of above arguments, learned counsel for the Status report by way of an affidavit of Jasbinder Singh, PPS, on behalf of has been filed in Court. Learned State counsel has raised submission in tandem with this reply and has opposed the petition in hand. the rival parties and have AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 6. petition is as to whether the impugned FIR (as also proceedings arising therefrom) under Section 174 factual matrix of the present case. 7. judgment of this Court passed in CRM Hanif Attari vs. State of Haryana, reads as under: -36821-2025 The seminal question that arises for consideration in the present petition 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. 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; relevant whereof reads as under: “3. In view the fact that after the principle procee 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 as “Baldev Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and another 29.01.2019, which held as under: “Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017 filed under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sector subsequent proceedings arising thereof as well as order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the trial Court vide which a direction was issued to register the aforesaid FIR." XX XXX XXXX Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by this Court in "Vikas Sharma v. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another (supra), 2017, (3) L.A.R.584, Microqual Techno Limited and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2015 (32) RCR (Criminal) 790 and "Rajneesh Khanna v. State of Haryana and another" 2017 (3) L.A.R. 555 wherein in an identical circumstance, this Court has h 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 4 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 ; 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 would arise 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 ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-43813-2018 titled 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 .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 (supra), 2017, (3) L.A.R.584, Microqual Techno Limited and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2015 (32) RCR (Criminal) 790 and "Rajneesh Khanna v. State of Haryana and another" 2017 (3) L.A.R. 555 wherein in an identical circumstance, this Court has held that since the main petition filed under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties, therefore, continuation of proceedings under Section 174A of IPC shall be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. 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 ; it would be apposite to refer herein to a Mohammad decided on 06.07.2023; relevant whereof dings 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, 4. The question framed ibid is no more res integra and already stands 2018 titled vide order dated “Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017 filed under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code 5, Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof as well as order dated .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 (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 eld 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7.1. as Daljit Singh v No.4359 of 2024 decided on 02.01.2025; has held that: -36821-2025 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 regist under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings arising 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 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 subseque 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. F 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 that: “7.3 Now, what happens if the status under nullified i.e., the person subjected to such proclamation, by virtue of subsequent developments is no longer required to be presented before a Court of law. Then, can the prosecution still proceed against such a person for having not appeared before a Court during the time that the process was in effect. The answer is in the affirmative. We say so for the following reasons:- (i) The language of Section 174A appear at the specified place and the specif proclamation…”. This implies that the very instance at which a 5 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. 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 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled s. 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 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 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, ered under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station 5, Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings arising ordinate Bench in the "Ashok Madaan v. 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 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 ntly 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. IR No. 446 dated 21.08.2017, registered under Section 174A I.PC. at Police Station Kotwali, District Faridabad, as well as consequential proceedings the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled , Criminal Appeal Cr.P.C. is 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 , IPC says “whoever fails to ied time as required by proclamation…”. This implies that the very instance at which a AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- FIR (therein) offence in the form of in the said case had been settled and withdrawn by the rival parties. -36821-2025 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 10 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 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 offe 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. 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. 6 person is directed to appear, and he does not do so, this Section What further flows from the language employed is that the arance 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 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 stands 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 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, 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. person is directed to appear, and he does not do so, this Section What further flows from the language employed is that the arance 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 stands 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 nce 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, 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 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 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 off the overburdened Court complaint has been settled/withdrawn would undermine the legislative intent and distort the remedial nature of Section 138 o tantamount to contravening the principles of fairness, proportionality, and -36821-2025 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 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 o tantamount to contravening the principles of fairness, proportionality, and 7 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 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 ence 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 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 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 ence 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 f NI Act of 1881. It would tantamount to contravening the principles of fairness, proportionality, and AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 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 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 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/Cou jurisprudence that though laws attempt to deal with all cases that may arise, the infinite variety of circumstances which shape events and the -36821-2025 justice in criminal proceedings. A literal interpretation may sometimes lead to unjust outcomes that also contradict the law’s underlined purpose. fore, 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 comp effectively, rather than mere literal/technical compliance. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, 2023/Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is primarily aimed at preventing abuse of judicial process and securing the ends of justice. Thus, when the dispute is essentially personal in nature and a genuine compromise has been reached, 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 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 may arise, the infinite variety of circumstances which shape events and the 8 justice in criminal proceedings. A literal interpretation may sometimes lead to unjust outcomes that also contradict the law’s underlined purpose. fore, 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 ends of justice. Thus, when the dispute is 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 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 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 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 rts 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 justice in criminal proceedings. A literal interpretation may sometimes lead to unjust outcomes that also contradict the law’s underlined purpose. fore, 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 lexities, efficaciously as also The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, 2023/Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is primarily aimed at preventing abuse of ends of justice. Thus, when the dispute is 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 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 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 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 rts 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- imperfections of language make it impossible to lay down p 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 fo 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 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 2021, the subject matter of the original offence having been settled amicably between the parties and the criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 having been withdrawn on the basis of such settlement/compromise; this Court deems it appropriate FIR as also all proceedings emanating therefrom deserve to be quashed. 11. -36821-2025 imperfections of language make it impossible to lay down p 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 effective manner. In other words; Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 reflects peerless powers, which a High Court may draw upon as necessary whenever s 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 entire 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 2021, the subject ter 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 FIR as also all proceedings emanating therefrom deserve to be quashed. It is, hence, directed as under: 9 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 r 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 effective manner. In other words; Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 reflects peerless powers, which a High Court may draw upon as necessary whenever s 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 2021, the subject ter 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: rovisions 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 r 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 effective manner. In other words; Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 reflects peerless powers, which a High Court may draw upon as necessary whenever s just and equitable to do so, in particular to ensure the observance of the nay ty 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 2021, the subject ter 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 that the impugned AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- (i) (Annexure P and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom (ii) July 29, 202 Ajay -36821-2025 The FIR No.74 dated 27.04.2023 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 10 74 dated 27.04.2023, under Section 174-A of IPC ) registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No A of IPC Ludhiana AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document