CRM-M-38720-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 134 CRM-M-38720-2026 Date of decision : 17.07.2026 Anil Kumar ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Rohit Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 482 Cr.P.C.) for setting aside the impugned order dated 30.11.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rewari whereby the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person in Complaint No.NI-216-2017, and for quashing of FIR No.82 dated 19.02.2022 registered under Section 174-A IPC (corresponding Section 209 of BNS, 2023) at Police Station Model Town, District Rewari (Annexure P-2), along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint bearing No.NI-216- 2017 was filed against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act’) for dishonouring of a cheque and the petitioner was summoned in the complaint, however, service was not effected to him and due to his non-appearance on 30.11.2019, he was declared as a proclaimed person and the SHO concerned was directed to SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.20 08.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-38720-2026 -2- register a case under Section 174-A IPC (corresponding Section 209 of BNS, 2023) against the petitioner and as a result thereof, the present FIR has been registered against him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR is the outcome of a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act, wherein he was declared as a proclaimed person vide order dated 30.11.2019 (Annexure P-1). He also submits that since the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, the aforesaid complaint has already been withdrawn by the complainant/respondent No.2. In this regard, learned counsel has referred to a copy of the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rewari dated 13.05.2026 at Annexure P-4. He, therefore, prays for quashing of the impugned order (Annexure P-1) as well as the aforesaid FIR as the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC (corresponding Section 209 of BNS, 2023) would be an abuse of process of law. 4. Notice of motion. 5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jangra, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and has not disputed the factum of compromise between the parties. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the material available on record. 7. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Daljit Singh versus State of Haryana and another, bearing Criminal Appeal No.4359 of 2024, decided on 02.01.2025, has quashed the impugned FIR therein registered under Section 209 of BNS, 2023 (corresponding Section 174-A IPC) on the ground SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.20 08.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-38720-2026 -3- that the initial complaint under Section 138 NI Act had been settled between the parties. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:- “7.3 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 following reasons:- (i) The language of 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 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 therefore would be independent of Section 82, Cr.P.C. being in effect; (iii) So, while proceedings under Section 174A IPC cannot be initiated independent of 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., that Section 174A, IPC is a stand-alone offence in Mukesh Bhatia v. State (NCT of Delhi)19; Divya Verma v. State20; Sameena & Anr. v. State GNCT of Delhi & Anr.21 For 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 cases. (v) Granted that the offence prescribed in Section 174A IPC is indeed stand-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, should such a prayer be made and the circumstances of the case so warrant. 8. In conclusion, we hold that Section 174A IPC is an independent, substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation under Section 82, Cr.P.C. is extinguished. It is a stand-alone offence. That being the position of 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1023 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2619 Crl. M.C No, 1470 of 2021, Dated 17th May, 2022 law, let us now turn to the present facts. As we have already noted supra, the Appellant stands acquitted of the main offence.” 8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in similar circumstances, in the case of Soni Kumar versus State of Punjab, bearing CRM-M-55315-2024, SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.20 08.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-38720-2026 -4- decided on 10.01.2025, has quashed the FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC (corresponding Section 209 of BNS, 2023) stating that where the main complaint has been withdrawn, the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. The relevant extract thereof is as under:- “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-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 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 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 infact 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 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 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 to fulfil 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 it is just an 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. 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 matter of the original offence having been settled amicably between the parties and the SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.20 08.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-38720-2026 -5- 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 FIR as also all proceedings emanating therefrom deserve to be quashed.” 9. In view of the above and keeping in view the facts that the dispute has since been amicably settled between the parties and the original complaint case related to the dishonoured cheque has already been dismissed as withdrawn, it would be just, fair and in the interest of justice to quash the impugned order (Annexure P-1) as well as the aforesaid FIR as the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. 10. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 30.11.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rewari along with FIR No.82 dated 19.02.2022 registered under Section 174-A IPC (corresponding Section 209 of BNS, 2023) at Police Station Model Town, District Rewari (Annexure P-2) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner. (H.S.GREWAL) 17.07.2026 JUDGE Sonia Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.20 08.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh