CRM-M-36706-2026 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36706-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.07.2026 Palanethra B.R. ………Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..….Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. B.S. Ladhwal, Advocate for the petitioner. VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (Oral). This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No. 1926 dated 02.10.2019 under Section 174- A IPC registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram (Annexure P.1) and order dated 09.09.2019 (Annexure P.2), passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gurugram, vide which the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person in a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments, 1881 (for short `the N.I. Act’) bearing No.NACT- 9152-2017 titled as “Educomp Solution Ltd. Vs. S.G. International. 2. In a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act filed by complainant-Educomp Solution Limited, summons were issued to the petitioner. As despite service, none appeared on DALBIR SINGH 2026.07.15 12.34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36706-2026 (O&M) [2] behalf of the petitioner, bailable warrants were issued vide order dated 27.11.2017. Still the petitioner did not appear, which led to the issuance of non-bailable warrants vide order dated 05.10.2018. Despite the said fact, the petitioner did not appear, as a result of which proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., was issued against the petitioner and vide order dated 09.09.2019 passed by the trial Court, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person. As a result of the same, FIR No.1926 dated 02.10.2019 was registered against the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter-alia, contends that pursuant to the initiation of the aforesaid criminal proceedings, the petitioner surrendered before the trial Court and regularized his appearance. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the complaint filed by the complainant was withdrawn on 27.01.2026 on account of a compromise having been arrived at between the parties. It is submitted that once the very complaint stands withdrawn, no purpose would be served by continuing with the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person and consequential registration of the FIR under Section 174-A IPC and further proceedings arising therefrom. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Amit Sahni, Addl. AG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and opposes the prayer made in the petition. DALBIR SINGH 2026.07.15 12.34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36706-2026 (O&M) [3] 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. No doubt, a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, was filed by the complainant against the petitioner. As despite the issuance of bailable and non-baialable warrants, the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court, he was declared a proclaimed person. However, the fact remains that the complaint filed by the complaint stands withdrawn on 27.01.2026. The order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the trial Court reads as under:- “Learned counsel for complainant- company got his statement recorded separately to the effect that the complainant-Company does not want to proceed further with the present complaint and therefore, on the instructions of the complainant-Company, he withdraws the present complaint. Heard. In view of the aforesaid statement, present complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.” 8. Thus, once the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act stands withdrawn, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the proclamation proceedings and the consequential FIR under Section 174-A IPC. DALBIR SINGH 2026.07.15 12.34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36706-2026 (O&M) [4] 9. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Baldev Chand Bansal vs. State of Haryana and another (CRM-M-43813- 2018 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 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.” Still further, in Narender Vs. State of Haryana and another (CRM-M-6659-2023 decided on 08.02.2023), a DALBIR SINGH 2026.07.15 12.34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36706-2026 (O&M) [5] Coordinate Bench of this Court, while relying upon the judgment in Ashok Madan vs. State of Haryana and another, 2020(4) RCR (Criminal) 87, quashed the order declaring the petitioner therein as a proclaimed person and consequential FIR under Section 174-A, IPC. This Court in Anil Dhiman Vs. State of Punjab and another (CRM-M-28812-2023 decided on 01.06.2023), while quashing the order vide which the petitioner therein was declared a proclaimed person and the consequential FIR under Section 174-A IPC, has held as under:- “7. Going by the facts of the case, it is clear that even with the continuation of the FIR, no useful purpose will be served and the interest of justice demands that the same should be quashed. A Coordinate Bench of this Court also ceased of the same question relying upon the judgment in the case of Ashok Madan v. State of Haryana and another 2020 (4) RCR (Criminal) 87 wherein it had been held that since the FIR under Section 174-A IPC had been 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 and, therefore, the FIR deserved to be quashed. A Coordinate Bench of this Court also took the same view in the case of Rahul Dureja and another v. State of Punjab 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 248 and held as under:- "A perusal of the above judgment would show that where FIR has been registered under Section 174-A of the IPC in view of the order passed in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, while declaring the petitioners as proclaimed persons in the said proceedings, a coordinate Bench after relying upon various judgments, had observed that once the accused persons had DALBIR SINGH 2026.07.15 12.34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36706-2026 (O&M) [6] appeared in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and had been granted the concession of bail, then the effect of order declaring the accused person as proclaimed person would dissipate and the ground for registration of the FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC would no longer exist and thus, any proceeding under Section 174-A of the IPC would be an abuse of the process of the Court." 8. A similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in Vikas Sharma v. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another CRM-M-32465-2017, decided on 13.09.2017 and Deepak v. State of Haryana and another CRM-M-14623-2021, decided on 17.02.2022.” 10. Learned State counsel has not been able to dispute the aforesaid facts and the position of law as laid down in the aforesaid judgments. 11. In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.09.2019 declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person; the consequential FIR No. 1926 dated 02.10.2019 registered under Section 174-A IPC and the proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. Pending application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE 09.07.2026 ds DALBIR SINGH 2026.07.15 12.34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document