Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bijender vs State Of Haryana on 16 February, 2026
CRM-M-8837-2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
133 CRM-M-8837-2026
Date of Decision: 16.02.2026
BIJENDER ....PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL.
Present: Mr. P.K.Chugh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunny Namdev, AAG, Haryana
H.S.GREWAL, J (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing of FIR No. 266 dated 27.07.2023 under Section 174-A registered at Police Station Arya Nagar Rohtak and subsequent proceedings thereof arising thereto.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present FIR is the outcome of a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner under Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act. He further submits that the petitioner was declared proclaimed person vide order dated 14.07.2023 in pursuance thereto FIR No. 266 dated 27.07.2023 under Section 174-A IPC was registered. He further submits that the petitioner was arrested in the above said FIR on 31.03.2024 and was produced before the Court and the ld. Court vide order dated 31.03.2024 released the petitioner on regular bail. He further submits that the petitioner has already deposited the entire amount claimed by the complainant and vide order dated 26.03.2025, the complaint was compounded and the petitioner was 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:33:34 ::: CRM-M-8837-2026 2 acquitted of the charges. 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 Soni Kumar versus State of Punjab, bearing CRM-M-55315-2024, decided on 10.01.2025.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was rightly declared as proclaimed person, pursuant to which FIR was registered against him under Section 174-A IPC, as he had failed to appear before the Court without any reasonable cause.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the material available on record.
5. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the present FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC on the ground that the main matter has been settled, the petitioner has been acquitted and the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of process of law.
6. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in similar circumstances, in the case of Soni Kumar versus State of Punjab(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, 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:33:34 ::: CRM-M-8837-2026 3 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 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 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:33:34 ::: CRM-M-8837-2026 4 528 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 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."
7. In the present case, since the main matter has been settled between the parties and the petitioner has been acquitted, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC against the petitioner.
8. Resultantly, the petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No. 266 dated 27.07.2023 under Section 174-A registered at Police Station Arya Nagar Rohtak and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner are quashed.
(H.S.GREWAL) 16.02.2026 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:33:34 :::