CRM-M/13047/2019 of KRISHAN SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER on 21 July 2026

1. This petition has been filed under section Under 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR bearing no.52 dated 30.01.2019 registered u/s 174-A IPC, at P.S. Ambala City, Ambala and further to quash all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the above mentioned FIR.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was never duly served in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as the notices and warrants were issued at an incorrect address. The proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was also executed at Village Siwana Mall, whereas the petitioner was residing at Village Dhadoli. Consequently, the proceedings declaring him a proclaimed person and the FIR under Section 174-A IPC are liable to be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the certificate (Annexure P-7) issued by the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, the petitioner is resident of the village Dhadoli for the last 2-3 years. It has been RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh thus contended that once the proclamation as well as the summons were being effected on the wrong address, the impugned order declaring the petitioner to be proclaimed offender and the consequential FIR registered for the offences punishable under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained.

4. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2. submits that the petitioner was duly served through his father, Ram Mehal, and was well aware of the court proceedings, yet deliberately failed to appear before the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the order declaring him a proclaimed person is legal and valid, and the FIR under Section 174-A IPC is maintainable. The present petition is, thus, liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned council for the parties and produce the record.

6. In the reply filed by way of an affidavit of Sultan Singh, HPS, Dy. Supdt. Of Police, Headquarters, Ambala there is no explanation regarding the address of the petitioner of village Dhadoli. It is also not coming on record how the proclamation was got issued for a wrong address mentioning the petitioner to be resident of village Siwana Mall. Keeping in view above peculiar facts and circumstances and the fact that petitioner was not residing with his father at Village Siwana Mall and was, therefore, not duly served with the proclamation issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the consequential proceedings declaring him a proclaimed person cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has since been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and appeal preferred by him against the said conviction is pending RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh adjudication before the ld. Appellate Court.

7. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 16.04.2018 cannot be sustained and here set aside. As a corollary of the quashing of order dated 16.04.2018, the impugned FIR No. 52 dated 30.01.2019 and all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR is hereby ordered to be quashed.

(H.S.GREWAL) 21.07.2026

JUDGE renu

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh