Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surender Singh Rana vs State Of Haryana And Another on 11 December, 2025
CRM-M-25677-2023(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
123
CRM-M-25677-2023(O&M)
Date of decision: 11.12.2025
Surender Singh Rana ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY
Present : Mr. Sandeep Lather, Advocate
for the applicant-petitioner.
Ms. Shweta Nahata, DAG, Haryana.
*****
AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL)
CRM-42492-2025 By virtue of the present application, applicant-petitioner prays for reviving the original petition bearing No. CRM-M-25677-2023, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16.09.2025.
Contents of the application perused.
In view of the reasons mentioned therein, as also keeping in view the cardinal principle of law as per which the Court should endeavor to decide controversies between the parties on merits and not on technicalities, the present application is allowed and the main petition i.e. CRM-M-48764- 2025 is restored to its original number.
The main petition is taken on board today itself.
CRM-M-25677-2023
1. Petitioner is seeking quashing of the FIR No.120 dated 09.04.2018, under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 BNS) at Police Station Civil Lines, Jind District Jind, arising out of complaint bearing COMA/175-2 of 2009 dated 19.12.2009 titled "Fateh Singh Vs. Surender 1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 27-12-2025 12:06:35 ::: CRM-M-25677-2023(O&M) 2 Singh Rana" registered against him u/s 138 of NI Act.
2. Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on record be noticed hereinbelow:-
Criminal complaint bearing COMA/175-2 of 2009 dated 19.12.2009 titled "Fateh Singh Vs. Surender Singh Rana" under Section 138 of NI Act was filed by respondent No.2-
complainant against petitioner alleging therein that cheque bearing No.486724 dated 30.10.2009 of Rs.6,30,000/- issued by petitioner in discharge of his legal liability, was dishonoured. Learned trial Court convicted petitioner under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year as also to pay cheque amount of Rs.6,30,000/- to complainant-respondent No.2. Copy of the judgment and order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the learned trial Magistrate appended along with petition as Annexure P-1 has also been referred to.
Dissatisfied with the said judgment, an appeal bearing No. 65 of 2013 titled 'Surender Singh Rana vs. Fateh Singh and another' was filed, which was accompanied by an application for suspension of sentence. Learned First Appellate Court admitted the appeal and allowed the application for suspension of sentence vide order dated 05.04.2013, on the condition that 50% of the cheque amount would have to be deposited. On account of paucity of funds, petitioner could not deposit the amount and was thus arrested.
This order dated 05.04.2013 of learned First Appellate Court was also challenged by petitioner before this Court vide CRM-M-13105 of 2013, wherein he was granted relief by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2013 and was released on bail on 06.07.2013. Unfortunately, due to certain unavoidable reasons, when the appeal came up for hearing before the First Appellate Court, petitioner could again not appear. Consequently, the appeal came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, 2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 27-12-2025 12:06:36 ::: CRM-M-25677-2023(O&M) 3 Jind vide order dated 14.07.2014. Petitioner was also declared 'Proclaimed Offender' and proceedings under Section 174-A IPC were ordered to be initiated against him. In compliance of the said Court order, impugned FIR bearing No.120 dated 09.04.2018 was registered against petitioner under Section 174 A IPC. Copy of the FIR is appended along with the petition as Annexure P-3.
Insofar as the present petition is concerned, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 14.07.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jind in criminal appeal No.65 of 2013 titled 'Surender Singh Rana vs. Fateh Singh and another' vide which he was declared as 'Proclaimed Offender'. Petitioner has also taken the plea that the present criminal revision could not be filed within the limitation period as he was in custody.
However, on 20.12.2019 when the aforesaid petition came up for hearing, he was granted the concession of interim bail subject to payment of cheque amount and the case was adjourned for 30.01.2020 and thereafter for 23.03.2020, after which complete lockdown was imposed. Unfortunately, petitioner could not take benefit of interim order passed by this Court on 20.12.2019 as he could not arrange for the funds and once again the coercive methods to procure his presence were initiated. Consequent thereto, the petitioner was declared as 'Proclaimed Offender'. Now the financial dispute between the parties has been settled and petitioner has paid the agreed amount to complainant-respondent No.2. Consequent thereto, a petition for quashing NACT No.175/2 of 2009 was filed before this Court in CRA-1654 of 2018. The same was allowed on 08.10.2025. Copy of which has been placed on record by learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. In the light of the factual backdrop of the case as mentioned hereinabove, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the COMA/175-2 of 2009 dated 19.12.2009 has already been quashed, 3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 27-12-2025 12:06:36 ::: CRM-M-25677-2023(O&M) 4 continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC (Section 209 BNS) would be a sheer abuse of process of law.
Reliance has been placed upon the following judgments of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Soni Kumar versus State of Punjab, bearing CRM-M-55315-2024, decided on 10.01.2025, Deepak versus State of Haryana and another, bearing CRM-M-14623-2021, decided on 17.02.2022 and Pardeep Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and another, bearing CRM-M-41656 of 2023, decided on 23.08.2023 wherein the FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC arising out of the same complaint between the parties had been quashed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble 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.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the material available on record.
5. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS), 2023 on account of him having been declared as 'Proclaimed Offender' on 14.07.2014. Admittedly, the financial dispute between the parties, which led to filing of COMA/175-2 of 2009 dated 19.12.2009 titled 'Fateh Singh vs. Surender Singh Rana', has already been quashed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.10.2025 passed in CRR-
1564-2018.
At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Daljit Singh's case (supra), wherein it was 4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 27-12-2025 12:06:36 ::: CRM-M-25677-2023(O&M) 5 held as follows:-
"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 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)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.
5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 27-12-2025 12:06:36 ::: CRM-M-25677-2023(O&M) 6
(v) Granted that the offence prescribed in Section 74A 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."
A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in similar circumstances, in the case of Soni Kumar's case (supra) has quashed the FIR under Section 174-A IPC 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 6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 27-12-2025 12:06:36 ::: CRM-M-25677-2023(O&M) 7 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 7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 27-12-2025 12:06:36 ::: CRM-M-25677-2023(O&M) 8 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 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."
Another Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak's case (supra), has also held as under:-
"An affidavit was also filed by respondent No.2, which has been annexed as Annexure R-1, wherein in para 4 of the same, it has been stated that respondent No.2-Bank has no objection, in case, the present FIR is quashed against the petitioner because the Bank has received the cheque amount and consequently, the complaint has been withdrawn. Since, the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 has been withdrawn and the present FIR has been registered on account of non-appearance of the petitioner, this Court feels that continuance of the proceedings in the present FIR would be an abuse of process of the Court. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, as well as the authorities of law referred to above, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.969 dated 04.11.2018 registered under Section 174-A of IPC at Police Station Ballabgarh City, District Faridabad (Annexure P-3) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner."
Relying upon the aforesaid judgments and due weightage to the fact that COMA/175-2 of 2009 dated 19.12.2009 has already been quashed, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS) against the petitioner.
8 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 27-12-2025 12:06:36 ::: CRM-M-25677-2023(O&M) 9
6. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No. 120 dated 09.04.2018 under Section 174-A IPC (Section 209 of BNS, 2023) registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Jind (Annexure P-4) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner are hereby quashed.
(AARADHNA SAWHNEY)
JUDGE
11.12.2025
Hemant
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 27-12-2025 12:06:36 :::