CRM-M-52079-2025 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (123) CRM-M-52079-2025 (O & M) Date of decision:16.09.2025 Rohit Kumar …... Petitioner V/s The State of Punjab and anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Rahul Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab. ***** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the impugned order dated 09.12.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by the JMIC, Ludhiana in complaint bearing COMA No.6858 of 2020 titled as ‘Sarbjit Singh versus Rohit Kumar’ under Section 138 of the N.I. Act alongwith FIR No.23 dated 06.02.2023 under Section 174-A IPC registered at Police Station Focal Point, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-3) as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2.                   The brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted against the accused- petitioner/Rohit Kumar at the instance of the complainant/respondent No.2/ Sarbjit Singh. As the accused-petitioner/ Rohit Kumar did not appear before the Trial Court to face trial, he was declared as a proclaimed person vide SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.09.18 00:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-52079-2025 (O & M) ::2:: impugned order dated 09.12.2022 (Annexure P-2). Subsequently, the FIR No.23 dated 06.02.2023 under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Focal Point, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-3) came to be registered against the petitioner. 3.                  Subsequently, the accused-petitioner approached to the complainant-respondent No.2/Sarbjit Singh and compromised the matter. Thereafter, on 18.02.2025, the complainant-respondent No.2 suffered a statement before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana that he had compromised the matter with the accused and therefore, he wanted to withdraw the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the complaint in question was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure P-6). In view of the dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of the compromise, the present petition has been filed for quashing of the aforesaid impugned order dated 09.12.2022 (Annexure P-2) and the FIR No.23 dated 06.02.2023 under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Focal Point, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-3) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was compromised between the parties. On 18.02.2025, the complainant got recorded a statement before the Trial Court that since he had compromised the matter with the accused, he did not want to proceed further with the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and wanted SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.09.18 00:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-52079-2025 (O & M) ::3:: to withdraw the same.  Based on the said statement, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure P-6). 5. The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the FIR had been correctly registered. 6.                   I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. 7.                   From the above-said facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the present FIR was registered during the pendency of the proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.  The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act itself has been withdrawn. 8.                   A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-43813-2018 titled as “Baldev Chand Bansal vs. State of Haryana and another”, decided on 29.01.2019 has held as under:- “Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017 filed under Section 174-A 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. xxx xxx xxx Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by this Court in “ Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another (supra), 2017, (3) L.A.R.584, Microqual Techno Limited and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2015 (32) RCR (Crl.) 790 and “Rajneesh Khanna Vs. State of Haryana and SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.09.18 00:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-52079-2025 (O & M) ::4:: 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. xxx xxx xxx 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 174-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, are hereby quashed.” 9. A perusal of the above judgment would show that in a similar case where the FIR had been registered under Section 174-A IPC in view of the order passed in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, while declaring the petitioner therein as a proclaimed offender, a co-ordinate Bench after relying upon various judgments observed that once the main petition under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties, the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The said aspect was one of the main considerations for allowing the petition and setting aside the order declaring the petitioner therein as a proclaimed person as well as for quashing of the FIR under Section 174-A IPC. SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.09.18 00:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-52079-2025 (O & M) ::5:: 10. Another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled as “Ashok Madan vs. State of Haryana and another” reported as 2020(4) RCR (Criminal) 87 has also held as under:- “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 I.P.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.P.C. At Police Station Kotwali, District Faridabad, as well as consequential proceedings shall stand quashed.” 11. A perusal of the relevant extract of the above judgment would show that where the main case was dismissed for want of prosecution, it was observed that the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC shall be an abuse of the process of court. A similar view has been expressed by this Court in “Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar and another, CRM-M- 5878-2022 decided on 06.04.2022”,  “Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar and another, CRM-M-5755-2022 decided on 06.04.2022” and “Varinder SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.09.18 00:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-52079-2025 (O & M) ::6:: Kumar @ Virender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and another, CRM-M- 42551-2021 decided on 19.04.2022”. 12. In the present case the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the aforesaid complaint. 13. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and subject to a deposit of Rs.25,000/- as costs with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority-Disaster Relief Fund, Account No.44426937384, IFSC Code:SBIN0014656, State Bank of India, Sector 68, SAS Nagar, the impugned order dated 09.12.2022 (Annexure P-2), FIR No.23 dated 06.02.2023 under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Focal Point, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-3) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner only. ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE September 16, 2025 sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.09.18 00:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh