CRM M-35631 of 2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-35631 of 2026 Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 Ashok ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present : Mr. Dharam Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Parmod Kumar, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate with Ms. Ankita, Advocate, for respondent No.2. N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral) CRM-35280 of 2026 Allowed as prayed for. The date of hearing is preponed and the main petition is taken up for hearing today itself. CRM M-35631 of 2026 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to quash FIR No. 34 dated 24.01.2026, registered under Section 209 of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 174-A of the IPC), at Police Station Sector-17 HUDA, Jagadhari, Yamunanagar, District Yamunanagar AMIT RANA 2026.09.11 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM M-35631 of 2026 2 (Annexure P-2), whereby, the petitioner is facing trial as a proclaimed offender. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submits that the petitioner is a dairy farmer and was maintaining his saving account with State Bank of India, Mussimbal Branch, District Yamuna Nagar. The petitioner had issued a cheque to the respondent No. 2. However, the said cheque was dishonoured and, ultimately, the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were ordered to be initiated against him. When the petitioner came to know about the criminal complaint against him, he approached the respondent No. 2 and regularized his loan account on 26.03.2024. He was under the bona-fide impression that the respondent No. 2 had withdrawn the complaint against him. However, when he failed to appear before the trial Court, the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were ordered to be initiated against him. Ultimately, the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender in the present case and in compliance of the orders passed by the trial Court, one FIR No. 34 dated 24.01.2026 under Section 209 of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 174-A of the IPC), Police Station Sector-17 HUDA, Jagadhari, Yamunanagar, was ordered to be registered against him. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached respondent No. 2 and on 08.06.2026 respondent No. 2 had withdrawn the complaint from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagadhri, which is apparent from order (Annexure P-4) passed by the trial Court. AMIT RANA 2026.09.11 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM M-35631 of 2026 3 Learned counsel further submits that, in fact, the petitioner was never served with summons/warrants by the trial Court and he has been wrongly declared as a proclaimed person in the present case. He further submits that the very purpose of the impugned FIR was only to procure the presence of the petitioner, and since the matter has already been compromised between the parties and the complaint has been withdrawn by the respondent No. 2, the impugned FIR No. 34 dated 24.01.2026, registered under Section 209 of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 174-A of the IPC), at Police Station Sector-17 HUDA, Jagadhari, Yamunanagar, District Yamunanagar, (Annexure P-2), and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed by this Court. 3. 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) AMIT RANA 2026.09.11 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM M-35631 of 2026 4 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.” 4. 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 AMIT RANA 2026.09.11 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM M-35631 of 2026 5 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. 5. 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.” 6. In the present case also, the main case has already been withdrawn by the complainant. Consequently, the continuation of the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR No. 34 dated 24.01.2026, registered under Section 209 of the BNS, 2023 AMIT RANA 2026.09.11 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM M-35631 of 2026 6 (corresponding to Section 174-A of the IPC), at Police Station Sector-17 HUDA, Jagadhari, Yamunanagar, District Yamunanagar 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” . 8. In view of the above, the FIR No. 34 dated 24.01.2026, registered under Section 209 of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 174-A of the IPC), at Police Station Sector-17 HUDA, Jagadhari, Yamunanagar, District Yamunanagar alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner only. 9. The petition stands allowed. 03.09.2024 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) amit rana JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No AMIT RANA 2026.09.11 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document