CRM-M-34005-2026 (O&M) -1 142 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34005-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:08.07.2026 Pardeep Singh @ Pardeep Kumar …Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present: Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajinder Kumar Banku, Sr.DAG, Haryana. Ms.Monika Thatai, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** CRM-26629-2026 1. The applicant/petitioner has moved the present application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S with a prayer to implead the complainant as respondent No.2. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the complainant is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.2 in the memo of parties. The amended memo of parties is taken on record. Main case 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S (482 of Cr. P.C) with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, HITESH 2026.07.08 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-34005-2026 (O&M) -2 Sirsa, whereby, the present petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person in a complaint case No. NACT-832-2021 titled as “Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. Vs. Pardeep Singh”. A further prayer has been made to quash the FIR No.28, dated 14.01.2026, under Section 209 of B.N.S (174-A of IPC), Police Station Civil Lines, Sirsa District Sirsa (Annexure P-8) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was filed against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint moved by respondent No.2, on account of dishonour of cheque for an amount of Rs.4,89,255/- dated 28.04.2021. After recording the preliminary evidence, vide order dated 22.11.2022 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was ordered to be summoned under Section 138 of the “Act”. After the summoning order, the summons/warrants were issued for the service of present petitioner, however, the same were never served. Ultimately, vide order dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-7), the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person and in compliance of the said order, one FIR No.28, dated 14.01.2026, under Section 209 of B.N.S (174-A of IPC), Police Station Civil Lines, Sirsa District Sirsa (Annexure P-8) was ordered to be registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contends that when the petitioner came to know about the lodging of the F.I.R, he approached the complainant and compromised the matter. He also paid the entire outstanding amount to the complainant and the complainant appearing before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa on 07.05.2026 and learned counsel for the complainant had made a statement that he did not want to proceed with the complaint as the matter has been HITESH 2026.07.08 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-34005-2026 (O&M) -3 compromised between the parties and he had withdrawn the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the main purpose of declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person was to ensure the presence of the petitioner before the Trial Court, where the complaint under Section 138 of the “Act” was pending. Since, the main complaint under Section 138 of the “Act” has already been withdrawn, no purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioner under Section 209 of B.N.S (174-A of IPC) and the F.I.R as well as the proceedings emanating therefrom are abuse of the process of the Court. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner had intentionally evading the process of law and did not appear before the Trial Court. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and the petition deserves to be dismissed by this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5. 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 HITESH 2026.07.08 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-34005-2026 (O&M) -4 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 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.” 6. 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 quashing of the FIR under Section 174-A IPC. HITESH 2026.07.08 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-34005-2026 (O&M) -5 7. 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 regularized 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.” 8. In the present case also, the main case has already been withdrawn by the complainant. Consequently, the continuation of the proceedings arising out of FIR No.28, dated 14.01.2026, under Section 209 of B.N.S (174-A of IPC), Police Station Civil Lines, Sirsa District Sirsa (Annexure P-8) would be an abuse of process of the Court. Similar observations have been made by this Court in the matter of “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 Kumar @ Virender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and another, CRM-M-42551- 2021 decided on 19.04.2022” . HITESH 2026.07.08 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-34005-2026 (O&M) -6 9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa and the FIR No.28, dated 14.01.2026, under Section 209 of B.N.S (174-A of IPC), Police Station Civil Lines, Sirsa District Sirsa (Annexure P-8) alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby ordered to be quashed. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 08.07.2026 JUDGE hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HITESH 2026.07.08 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh