CRM-M/39873/2026 of NAVEEN Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR on 22 July 2026

REEMA SAINI

--2-- settled and resolved pursuant to which the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881, was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.02.2026. Despite final disposal of the complaint, proceedings under Section 174-A IPC were continuing. Once the main case stood withdrawn, the very foundation for the proclamation and the FIR under Section 174-A ceased to exist. Relying upon Daljit Singh Versus State of Haryana and another, CRA No. 4359 of 2024, Decided on 02.01.2025 rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Ramapati Mishra Verus State of Haryanaand another CRM-M-30189 of 2023 Decided on 02.05.2025 and Davindra Mahajan Versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-24826 of 2022 Decided on 02.06.2022 by Co-ordinate Benches, learned counsel prays that subject FIR be quashed.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana, on advance notice appears on behalf of State and opposes the petition under Section 528 of BNSS arguing that despite the withdrawal of the main case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, proceedings under Section 174-A IPC were to continue independently.

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Daljit Singh Versus State of Haryana and another, while dealing with an identical issue observed as under: ‘........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 REEMA SAINI

--3-- 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.

(v) Granted that the offence prescribed inSection 174A IPC is indeed stand-alone, given that it arises out of an original offence in connection with which proceedings under Section 82Cr.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 174 A 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 law, let us REEMA SAINI

--4-- now turn to the present facts. As we have already noted supra, the Appellant stands acquitted of the main offence. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

11. The Appellant has been acquitted which means that there is no case for which his presence is required to be secured. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, i.e. that the original offence pertains to the year 2010; the money subject matter of dispute stands paid, the judgment of the High Court with the particulars as mentioned in aragraph 1 of this judgment, stands quashed and set aside. All criminal proceedings, inclusive of the FIR under Section 174 A IPC, shall stand closed. The Appellant’s status, as a ‘proclaimed person’ stands quashed.’

6. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-43813- 2018 titled as " Baldev Chand Bansal vs. State of Haryana and another", decided on 29.01.2019 has held as under:- "Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017 filed under Section 174-A 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. xxx xxx xxx Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by this Court in "Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another(supra), 2017, (3) L.A.R.584, Microqual Techno Limited and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2015 (32) RCR (Crl.)790 and "Rajneesh Khanna Vs. 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 REEMA SAINI

--5-- under Section 174Aof IPC shall be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. xxx xxx xxx 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 174-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, are hereby quashed."

7. Similar were the findings of another coordinate Bench in Ashok Madan v. State of Haryana and another reported as 2020(4) RCR (Criminal) 87 has also held as under:- "No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the offence under Section 174 A 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 174 A I.P.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 174 A I.P.C. At Police Station Kotwali, District Faridabad, as well as consequential proceedings shall stand quashed."

8. Undisputedly, the complaint case NACT/949/2021 titled ‘Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Ltd. Vs. Naveen’ wherein the petitioner was declared proclaimed person has been dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 06.02.2026 Annexure P-1. Petitioner has been acquitted in REEMA SAINI

--6-- the case. This factual position has not been disputed. Since, the main case stands terminated on account of a genuine compromise considering the legal position enunciated hereinabove, this Court must, in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court, intervene to quash the criminal proceedings as continuation thereof would be unjust.

9. The petition is allowed. FIR No. 896 dated 23.08.2023, under Section 174-A IPC, Police Station HTM, Hisar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) 22.07.2026

JUDGE reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes/No REEMA SAINI