Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep vs State Of Haryana And Another on 25 February, 2026
CRM-
CRM-M-5581-
5581-2026
1
180
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-5581-
5581-2026
Kuldeep
....Petitioner
.Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and another
....Respondentss
Date of Decision: February 25,
25, 2026
Date of Uploading: February 26,
26, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Mr. Satbir Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner
petitioner.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.
Ms. Pushpa Bagoria, Advocate for respondent No.2.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J. (ORAL)
The substantive prayer made in the petition in hand reads thus:
“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present petition may
kindly be allowed and FIR No.799 799 dated 06.12.2025, registered under
Section 209 of the BNS, 2023,, at Police Station Civil Line Sirsa,, District
Sirsa and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, including order
dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure P-2)2) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Sirsa, in complaint CIS No.NACT
No.NACT-201-2023 (Annexure P-1) 1) titled
as “Rohit
ohit Kumar versus Kuldeep“, thereby, the petitioner has been
declared as Proclaimed Person, in view of the fact that the said complaint
having been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.01.2026
(Annexure P-4) in pursuance to mutual settlement between the parties,,
justice.”
may kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice
2. The impugned FIR (as set out in the petition in hand) reads thus:
“CNR No: HRS1030010292023 CIS No: NACT
NACT-201- 2023
ROHIT KUMAR VS KULDEEP etc. Present: Shri Nirbhay, Advocate for
complainant Today the matter was listed for consideration for declaring
the accused as proclaimed person as well as for appearance of accused.
The statutory period of 30 days from the date of affixation of proclamation
on the conspicuous part of premises oof accused has already been expired.
Today, none appeared on behalf of accused despite repeated calls since
morning. Waited sufficiently. No further wait would be justified. Hence
accused is declared as proclaimed person. SHO concerned is directed to
register
er the FIR against the accused under section 209 BNS. An intimation
in this regard alongwith copy of order be sent to SHO concerned. Further
Bank Manager concerned is directed to freeze all the accounts of accused1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 01:41:57 :::
CRM-
CRM-M-5581-
5581-2026
2in that branch including the account no. 1811211618365971 from which
the cheque in question was issued. Ahlmad concerned is hereby directed to
send the intimation in this regard alongwith copy of order to the bank
Manager concerned. On request of learned counsel for complainant, let,
the matter be listed for recording the statement of complainant under
Section 299 of Cr.P.C. as well as for furnishing the property of details of
accused for 20.09.2025. (Richu) Deepika, Steno JMIC, Sirsa-17.7.2025
(UID No. HR-0514)”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned
FIR, has its genesis, in a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner (herein)
under Section 138 of the NI Act, in proceedings whereof the petitioner was
declared as a proclaimed person & hence the impugned FIR came to be got
registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that
in the said case under Section 138 of the NI Act, the petitioner was released on
bail, but later on, due to non-appearance of the petitioner, he was declared as
proclaimed person, vide order dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel
has further argued that, pursuant to the said order, FIR in question under Section
209 of the BNS (equivalent to Section 174-A of IPC) has been registered against
the petitioner. Learned counsel has iterated that a compromise has been effected
between the petitioner and the complainant, and, accordingly, respondent No.2
appeared before the Court below, made statement to the effect that the petitioner
had paid the entire cheque amount along with compensation to him and did not
wish to pursue the complaint in question further. Based thereon, the complaint
under Section 138 of the NI Act was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated
23.01.2026 (Annexure P-4) by the learned JMIC, Sirsa.
3.1. It has been further iterated that since the criminal complaint under
Section 138 of NI Act, has already been withdrawn as the rival parties had entered
into a settlement, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by continuation of
the proceedings qua the impugned FIR. To buttress this aspect of his argument,
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 23.01.2026
passed by the Presiding Officer, Pre National Lok Adalat, Sirsa, which reads thus:
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 01:41:58 :::
CRM-
CRM-M-5581-
5581-2026
3
“File taken up today as an application for permission to withdraw
the complaint has been moved-on behalf of complainant. Let, file be
called from record room. File received from record room. Let file be
restored to its original number.
Complainant has made a statement that he has received the entire
cheque amount along with compensation from the accused. As nothing is
due of him from the accused, he does not want to proceed with the present
complaint and prayed this court to dismiss the present complaint as
withdrawn and consign it to the records. In view of the statement for
complainant, the present complaint stands dismissed as withdrawn. File
after due completion and registration be consigned to records.”
On the strength of above arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner has pressed for grant of petition in hand.
4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of an affidavit
dated 24.02.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record. Raising
submissions in tandem with the said status report, learned State counsel has
opposed the petition in hand. He, however, does not dispute the fact that the
parties have amicably resolved the matter and the main complaint stands
dismissed as withdrawn.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 – complainant appears and
ratifies the factum of compromise having been effected between the parties as well
as withdrawal of the complaint in question before the Court below.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused
the paper-book.
7. The seminal question that arises for consideration in the present
petition is as to whether the impugned FIR (as also proceedings arising therefrom)
under Section 209 of BNS (erstwhile Section 174-A of the IPC) deserves to be
quashed in the factual matrix of the present case.
8. At this juncture; it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of
CRM–M-51049
this Court passed in CRM 51049–2019 titled as Mohammad Hanif Attari vs.
06.07.2023
State of Haryana, decided on 06.07.2023; relevant whereof reads as under:
“3. In view the fact that after the principle proceedings in which the petitioner
was declared Proclaimed Offender stand concluded, the question would arise
is: ‘whether in the given circumstances, proceedings under Section 174A of3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 01:41:58 :::
CRM-
CRM-M-5581-
5581-2026
4the IPC pursuant to FIR No.425 dated 17th of November, 2017 can be
allowed to continue.
4. The question framed ibid is no more res integra and already stands
answered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-43813-2018 titled
as “Baldev Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and another” vide order dated
29.01.2019, which held as under:
“Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.64 dated
15.02.2017 filed under Section 174A 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.”
XX XXX XXXX
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions
rendered by this Court in “Vikas Sharma v. Gurpreet Singh Kohli
and another (supra), 2017, (3) L.A.R.584, Microqual Techno
Limited and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2015 (32)
RCR (Criminal) 790 and “Rajneesh Khanna v. 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.
XX XXX XXXX
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 174A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector-5,
Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, are
hereby quashed.”
5. Same is the view of another Co-ordinate Bench in the “Ashok Madaan v.
State of Haryana and another” reported as 2020 (4) RCR (Criminal) 87,
wherein it has been held that:
“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 LP.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.PC. at Police Station
Kotwali, District Faridabad, as well as consequential proceedings
shall stand quashed.”
8.1. More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as
Daljit Singh vs. State of Haryana and Another, Criminal Appeal No.4359 of 2024
decided on 02.01.2025; has held that:
“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 a4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 01:41:58 :::
CRM-
CRM-M-5581-
5581-2026
5Court 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 therefor 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) 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1023; Divya Verma
v. State 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2619; Sameena & Anr. v. State
GNCT of Delhi & Anr. Crl. M.C. No.1470 of 2021, Dated 17th
May, 2022 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.
xxxxxxxxx”
However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the impugned FIR
(therein) under Section 209 of the BNS (erstwhile Section 174-A of the IPC)
since, inter alia, the original offence in the form of criminal complaint under
Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 in the said case had been settled and withdrawn by
the rival parties.
9. It is for the High Court, while exercising its innate plenary powers
under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023/ 428 of Cr.P.C., 1973, to ratiocinate that it
should not apply the law in an austere, academic and exacting technical manner,
without considering its practical implications. The Law is not merely a set of
programmed, nailed-to-the-ground rules, to be applied without context. It must be
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 01:41:58 :::
CRM-
CRM-M-5581-
5581-2026
6
enforced, while bearing in mind, that its purpose is to ensure substantive justice
between the parties. The statutory provision of Section 174-A of IPC, when
perused in the light of ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Daljit Singh‘s case (supra), unequivocally shows that an FIR under
Section 174-A of the IPC does not proprio vigore become liable to be quashed, in
case the rival parties have entered into a compromise and such criminal
complaint/FIR has been compromised and quashed/withdrawn accordingly.
However, at the same time, the factum of the criminal complaint/FIR (in
furtherance of proceedings whereof) having been compromised/settled, is
indubitably, a relevant factor to be considered while dealing with a plea for
quashing of an FIR (as also proceedings emanating therefrom) under Section 174-
A of IPC. This fact assumes greater significance considering that the initial
proceedings pertain exclusively to a private criminal complaint under Section 138
of NI Act, 1881, which the legislature has expressly classified as a compoundable
offence. Such litigation, especially in the backdrop of original offence having been
compromised will have an adverse impact on the overburdened Court-dockets.
Allowing such prosecution, when initial complaint has been settled/withdrawn
would undermine the legislative intent and distort the remedial nature of Section
138 of NI Act of 1881. It would tantamount to contravening the principles of
fairness, proportionality, and justice in criminal proceedings. A literal
interpretation may sometimes lead to unjust outcomes that also contradict the
law’s underlined purpose. Therefore, the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction
must balance the letter of Law with its spirit, ensuring fair and equitable results.
This approach underscores Law’s role as an apparatus for fostering societal
harmony and addressing the real-world complexities, efficaciously as also
effectively, rather than mere literal/technical compliance.
10. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, 2023/ Section
482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is primarily aimed at preventing abuse of judicial process and
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 01:41:58 :::
CRM-
CRM-M-5581-
5581-2026
7
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-blood, its very essence, its
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 in fact been, invested with
power(s) to maintain its authority to prevent the process of law/Courts being
obstructed or abused. It is a trite posits 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 fulfill 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 and equitable to do so, in
particular to ensure the observance of the due process of law, to prevent vexation
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 01:41:58 :::
CRM-
CRM-M-5581-
5581-2026
8
or oppression, to do justice nay substantial justice between the parties and to
secure the ends of justice.
11. 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 2022, the subject matter of the original offence having
been settled amicably between the parties and the criminal complaint under
Section 138 of the NI Act having been withdrawn on the basis of such
settlement/compromise; this Court deems it appropriate that the impugned FIR as
also all proceedings emanating therefrom deserve to be quashed.
12. It is, hence, directed as under:
(i) Instant petition is allowed; (ii) The FIR No.799 dated 06.12.2025, registered under Section 209 of
the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Civil Line Sirsa, District Sirsa and all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom, including order dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure P-2)
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, in complaint CIS No.NACT-
201-2023 (Annexure P-1) titled as “Rohit Kumar versus Kuldeep“, thereby, the
petitioner has been declared as Proclaimed Person, stand quashed;
(iii) All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
February 25,
25, 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 01:41:58 :::
