Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikram vs State Of Haryana on 27 July, 2026
CRM-
CRM-M-49970-
49970-2023 (O&M)
1
281
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-49970-
49970-2023 (O&M)
Vikram Singh
....Petitioner
.Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
Date of Decision: July 27,
27, 2026
Date of Uploading: July 28,
28, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Mr. Manish Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner
petitioner.
Mr. Satbir Singh Goripuria, DAG Haryana.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J. (ORAL)
The substantive prayer made in the petition in hand reads thus:
“IT IS THEREFORE HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE PETITION MAY
KINDLY BE ACCEPTED AND FIR NO.330 DATED 17/12/2017 P.S BHIWANI
CIVIL LINES U/S 174-A
A IPC (ANNEXURE PP-I) WHICH WAS REGISTERED
IN CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. JMIC, BHIWANI
DATED
ED 18.12.2017 (ANNEXURE P P-3)
3) DECLARING PETITIONER AS
PROCLAIMED PERSON IN A COMPLAINT CASE U/S 138 NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENT ACT 1881, MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT NOW IN THE
COMPLAINT CASE U/S 138 NEGOTIABLE
GOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT 1881
NO.COMA-5435-2014
2014 TITLED PERSAIN CHANDER VS VIKRAM,
PARTIES HAVE REACHED TO AMICABLE SETTLEMENT AND THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS PAID BY THE PETITIONER AND VIDE ORDER
DATED 16.09.2023 (ANNEXURE P-4),
4), COMPLAINT U/S 138 NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENT
UMENT ACT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN ON THE BASIS OF
COMPROMISE.”
2. The impugned FIR (as set out in the petition in hand) reads thus:
“At this time a letter from the Court of Sh. Ashutosh JMIC Bhiwani is
received at Police Station through post. Details are as under:
Copy order dr. 29-11-17 17 CASE NO. COMA 5435.2014
COMA/5435/2014 Comp. u/s-138 138 NI ACT PS PS-CLCL BWN. SH B.B. JAIN ADV.
PESI-18.12.2017.
.2017. CIS NO COMA. 5435.2014 Persain Chander Vs Vikram
Present complainant not present but represented by Sh. B.B. Jain, Adv. An
application for exemption from personal appearance of complainant moved.
Heard Keeping in view the fact and circumstances ment mentioned
ioned in the application
the same is allowed and personal appearance of the complainant is exempted for
today only. Today the case was fixed for appearance of accused Vikram in
pursuance of proclamation issued against him Proclamation was duly published
Statement
atement of serving official was recorded to this effect Mandatory period of 30
days as described in section 82 CRPC has elapsed and despite this, accused
MAHAVIR SINGH
Vikram failed to appear before this court. It is already 2.00pm, Further wait is not
2026.07.28 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-
CRM-M-49970-
49970-2023 (O&M)
2justified Accused vikram is declared proclaimed person Intimation of this order
be sent to SHO, Police Station Civil Lines Bhiwani to register a FIR under
section 174-A IPC In case of delay, SHO Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani
shall be sole responsible. Put up on 18.12 2017 for awaiting status report from
SHO Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani as well as for evidence of prosecution
under section 299 CRPC. Sd- (Ashtosh) JMIC, BHIWANI UID No. HR 0363
DATED 29.11.2017 Prity. st. III Next date of hearing. 18.12.2017. Today orders
received at police station and in computer FIR NO. 330, DATED 17/12/2017 U/S
174-A OF IPC, P.S. BHIWANI CIVIL LINES HARYANA is lodged and original
letter kept in the Police Station. For further course of action file handed over to
HC Surender 700, who already gone for official work and copies of FIR will be
sent by post to the senior officers and Illaqa Magistrate.”
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 registered
against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner could not appear in the complaint case as the summons were never
served upon him, and, thus, he was declared as proclaimed person, vide order
dated 29.11.2017. Learned counsel has further argued that, pursuant to the said
order, FIR in question under Section 174-A of IPC has been registered against the
petitioner. Learned counsel has iterated that the complainant in the complaint case,
namely Persain Chander, had passed away on 28.05.2021 and a compromise has
been effected between the petitioner and the LRs of the complainant, and,
accordingly, LRs of the complainant appeared before the Court below, made
statement to the effect that they have compromised the matter with the accused
and do not want to proceed further with the complaint. Based thereon, the
complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order
dated 16.09.2023 (Annexure P-4) by the learned JMIC, Bhiwani.
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,
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.07.28 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-
CRM-M-49970-
49970-2023 (O&M)
3
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 16.09.2023
passed by the JMIC, Bhiwani, which reads thus:
“Original file received from the record room. The complaint had been
filed by one Persain Chander @ Happy son of Jagdish Chander. File had been
sent to the record room after declaring the accused Vikram a proclaimed person
by Ld. Predecessor Court. The present LR application have been filed by the
legal heirs of deceased namely Sunita (wife), Jagdish Chander (father) and Ankit
Siwatch (son). A separate undertaking of Ankit Siwatch have also been filed as
he is studying in Russia. The application is duly accompanied by the death
certificate of the deceased complainant. The same is heard and allowed.
Amended title have been filed. It be attached at proper place.
Fresh power of attorney on behalf of the LRs have been filed by Sh.
Surjeet Saini, Advocate.
At this juncture, the legal heirs namely Sunita (wife of deceased), Jagdish
Chander (father of deceased) have suffered a statement that they have already
received the cheque amount Rs. 4,00,000/- from the accused.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the complainant have suffered a
statement recorded separately to the effect that he withdraws the present
complaint on the instruction of complainant as compromise has been effected
between the parties. He further stated that no due remains regards the impugned
cheque and requested that file may kindly be consigned. Heard. In view of the
statement given by Ld. Counsel for the complainant, the present complaint is
hereby dismissed-as-withdrawn. These papers be attached with the main file and
be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.”
On the strength of above arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner has pressed for grant of petition in hand.
4. 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.
4.1. Since the FIR in question pertains to Section 174-A of IPC, this
Court does not deem it appropriate to call upon the complainant-side in complaint
case under Section 138 of the NI Act.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused
the paper-book.
6. 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.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.07.28 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-
CRM-M-49970-
49970-2023 (O&M)
4
7. 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.
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 of the 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.”
7.1. 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 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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.07.28 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-
CRM-M-49970-
49970-2023 (O&M)
5
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.
8. 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
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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.07.28 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-
CRM-M-49970-
49970-2023 (O&M)
6case 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 contradicts 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.
9. 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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.07.28 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-
CRM-M-49970-
49970-2023 (O&M)
7
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
or oppression, to do justice nay 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 2014, the subject matter of the original offence having
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.07.28 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-
CRM-M-49970-
49970-2023 (O&M)
8
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.
11. It is, hence, directed as under:
(i) Instant petition is allowed;
allowed
(ii) The FIR No.330 dated 17.12.2017, registered under Section 174-A
of IPC, at Police Station Bhiwani Civil Lines (Aannexure P-1) which was
registered in consequent to the order dated 18.12.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by
learned JMIC, Bhiwani declaring petitioner as proclaimed person, in a complaint
case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, stand quashed;
quashed
(iii) All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
July 27,
27, 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.07.28 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
