Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunita Wajir And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 20 November, 2025
CRM-M-65353-2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
123 CRM-M-65353-2025
Date of Decision: 20.11.2025
SUNITA WAJIR AND ANR ....petitionersS
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR .....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL.
Present: Mr. Jagjot Singh, Advocate for the petitionerss.
Mr. Tapan Masta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
H.S.GREWAL, J (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 of Cr.P.C) seeking quashing of FIR No. 0417 dated 15.02.2023 under Section 174-A IPC registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar District Gurugram along with all subsequent proceeding emanating therefrom since the main case i.e. criminal complaint No. NACT 26113/2018 titled as "M/s Rosemata Technologies Ltd. Vs. M/s Vasundhara Enterprises and others under Section 138 NI Act stands settled/compromised and the complaint stands withdrawn vide order dated 14.12.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the present FIR is the outcome of a criminal complaint filed against the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submits that the petitioners were declared proclaimed persons vide order dated 23.11.2022 and in pursuance thereto FIR No. 0417 dated 15.02.2023 under 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 19:02:58 ::: CRM-M-65353-2025 2 Section 174-A IPC was registered. He further contends that the petitioners paid the entire cheque amount and have settled the matter with the complainant; the complainant appeared before the learned JMIC, Gurugram and made a statement to that effect and the complaint was withdrawn by the complainant. He, therefore, prays for quashing of the present FIR as the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of process of law. He has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in 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 has been quashed. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Chintu Hans Versus State of Punjab bearing CRM-M-14728 of 2023 decided on 23.03.2023 and in the case of Davinder Mahajan Versus State of Haryana, bearing CRM-M- 24826-2022, decided on 02.06.2022.
3. Notice of motion.
4. Mr. Tapan Masta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that the petitioners were rightly declared as proclaimed persons, pursuant to which FIR registered was registered against them under Section 174-A IPC, as they had failed to appear before the Court without any reasonable cause.
5. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate appears and has filed his Memo of appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 in the Court today and the same is taken on record. He affirms that the matter has been compromised between the parties.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 19:02:59 ::: CRM-M-65353-2025 3 gone through the material available on record.
7. By way of the instant petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the present FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC on the ground that the initial complaint bearing NACT 26113/2018 has been withdrawn as the matter has been settled between the parties and the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of process of law.
8. 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 174-A IPC on the ground 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 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 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 19:02:59 ::: CRM-M-65353-2025 4 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."
9. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in similar circumstances, in the case of Soni Kumar versus State of Punjab, bearing CRM-M-55315- 2024, decided on 10.01.2025 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 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 19:02:59 ::: CRM-M-65353-2025 5 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 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 19:02:59 ::: CRM-M-65353-2025 6 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 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."
10. Another Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak versus State of Haryana and another, bearing CRM-M-14623-2021, decided on 17.02.2022., 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 petitioners be- cause the Bank has received the cheque amount and conse- quently, the complaint has been withdrawn. Since, the proceed- ings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 has been withdrawn and the present FIR has been registered on account of non-ap- pearance of the petitioners, 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 petitioners."
11. In the present case, since the original complaint related to the dishonoured cheque has been withdrawn as the matter has been settled 6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 19:02:59 ::: CRM-M-65353-2025 7 between the parties, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC against the petitioners.
12. Resultantly, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 0417 dated 15.02.2023 under Section 174-A IPC registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar District Gurugram and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom against the petitionerss are quashed. The order dated 23.11.2022 declaring the petitioners as "proclaimed persons" passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram is also quashed.
(H.S.GREWAL) 20.11.2025. JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No 7 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 19:02:59 :::