CRM-M/35430/2026 of RAKESH KUMAR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 10 July 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-35430-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 10.07.2026

Rakesh Kumar

………Petitioner

Versus State of Haryana and another

..….Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

Present: Mr. L.S. Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (Oral). CRM-27470-2026

The instant application has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking amendment in the memo of parties.

For the reasons given in the application, the same is allowed and respondent No.1-State of Punjab, is ordered to be substituted with State of Haryana. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. CRM-M-35430-2026

This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’), for quashing of the order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure P.6) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sirsa, vide which the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person in a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments, 1881 (for short `the 1981 Act’) bearing No.NACT/1084/2022 titled as “M/s Singla Enterprises Vs. M/s Bharat Rice Mills’ and consequential FIR No.544 dated 01.07.2023 registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Sirsa.

2. In a complaint under Section 138 of the 1881 Act, filed by respondent No.2-complainant, summons were issued to the accused, including the petitioner. However, as the accused were not found at the given address, proclamation under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., was issued against them. Subsequently, vide order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the trial Court, the accused were declared as proclaimed persons. As a result of the same, FIR No.544 dated 01.07.2023 was registered against them under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Sirsa.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter-alia, contends that the petitioner was a sleeping partner of M/s Bharat Rice Mills and has nothing to with the issuance of the cheque. It is further submitted that the complainant had given wrong address of the petitioner in the complaint due to which the summons could not be served upon him. It is further submitted that while declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person, the procedure as envisaged under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was not followed. 3.1

Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the passing of the order dated 30.05.2023 and registration of FIR No. 544 dated 01.07.2023 under Section 174-A IPC, the petitioner was arrested on 14.7.2023. However, he was released on bail vide order dated 14.07.2023 itself, passed by the trial Court.

3.2

It is also submitted that vide order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the trial Court, the petitioner was given up by the complainant being an unnecessary party as respondent No.2- Sandeep (in the complaint) had admitted his signatures on the cheque in question.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Amit Sahni, Addl. AG, Haryana, , accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and opposes the prayer made in the petition.

6. There would be no necessity of issuing notice to respondent No.2-complainant, for, in view of the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, no prejudice would be caused to it.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. Vide order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the trial Court, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person. However, subsequently, as reflected in the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the trial Court, respondent No.2- complainant had suffered a statement giving up the present petitioner being an unnecessary party in view of the fact that accused No.2 in the complaint (Sandeep Kumar) had admitted his signatures on the cheque. The order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the trial Court, reads as under:- “Learned counsel for complainant has made a statement that accused no.2-Sandeep has admitted his signature over the cheque Ex. C5, hence the complainant has given up accused no.4 Rakesh Kumar being unnecessary.

Arguments on notice of accusation heard. After going through the record of the case, this court is of the considered view that there exists prima-facie case against the accused person for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Accordingly, the notice of accusation for the offence under Section 138 of NIA is put to the accused person, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Plea of defence under Section 263(g) of accused person is also recorded. Al this stage, an application under Section 145(2) of Negotiable Instruments Act for allowing the accused to cross-examine the complainant has been filed. Keeping in view the facts as mentioned in the application, the same is considered and allowed. Adjournment has been sought. Now the case is adjourned to 9.6.2025 for cross-examination of the complainant on self responsibility.”

9. It may further be noticed that before passing the aforesaid order, the trial Court also recorded the statement of the complainant.

10. No doubt, the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, was filed by the complainant against four accused. Summons were issued against all of them, and subsequently, they were declared as proclaimed persons. However, the fact remains that the complainant suffered a statement before the trial Court on 20.03.2025 giving up the petitioner being an unnecessary party, as accused No.2-Sandeep Kumar, had admitted his signatures on the cheque. Thus, once the petitioner has been given up being an unnecessary party in the complaint, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the proclamation proceedings and the consequential FIR under Section 174-A IPC.

11. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Baldev Chand Bansal vs. State of Haryana and another (CRM-M-43813- 2018 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 under Section 174A of 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.”

Still further, in Narender Vs. State of Haryana and another (CRM-M-6659-2023 decided on 08.02.2023), a Coordinate Bench of this Court, while relying upon the judgment in Ashok Madan vs. State of Haryana and another, 2020(4) RCR (Criminal) 87, quashed the order declaring the petitioner therein as a proclaimed person and consequential FIR under Section 174-A, IPC.

This Court in Anil Dhiman Vs. State of Punjab and another (CRM-M-28812-2023 decided on 01.06.2023), while quashing the order vide which the petitioner therein was declared a proclaimed person and the consequential FIR under Section 174-A IPC, has held as under:- “7. Going by the facts of the case, it is clear that even with the continuation of the FIR, no useful purpose will be served and the interest of justice demands that the same should be quashed. A Coordinate Bench of this Court also ceased of the same question relying upon the judgment in the case of Ashok Madan v. State of Haryana and another 2020 (4) RCR (Criminal) 87 wherein it had been held that since the FIR under Section 174-A IPC had been registered only on account of absence from the proceedings in the main case which had been subsequently regularized by the Court while granting bail to the petitioner, the default stood condoned and, therefore, the FIR deserved to be quashed. A Coordinate Bench of this Court also took the same view in the case of Rahul Dureja and another v. State of Punjab 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 248 and held as under:- "A perusal of the above judgment would show that where FIR has been registered under Section 174-A of the IPC in view of the order passed in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, while declaring the petitioners as proclaimed persons in the said proceedings, a coordinate Bench after relying upon various judgments, had observed that once the accused persons had appeared in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and had been granted the concession of bail, then the effect of order declaring the accused person as proclaimed person would dissipate and the ground for registration of the FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC would no longer exist and thus, any proceeding under Section 174-A of the IPC would be an abuse of the process of the Court."

8. A similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in Vikas Sharma v. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another CRM-M-32465-2017, decided on 13.09.2017 and Deepak v. State of Haryana and another CRM-M-14623-2021, decided on 17.02.2022.”

12. Learned State counsel has not been able to dispute the aforesaid facts and the position of law as laid down in the aforesaid judgments.

13. In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure P.6) declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person and the consequential FIR No. 544 dated 01.07.2023 registered under Section 174-A IPC, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.

Pending application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)

JUDGE 10.07.2026 ds

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable

: Yes/No