Sher Singh vs State Of Haryana

CRM-M-50388-2026 (O&M)
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(157) CRM-M-50388-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 07.09.2026
Sher Singh ......PETITIONER
Versus
State of Haryana .....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON
Present: Mr. Tejas Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana,

NEERJA K. KALSON , J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the impugned
order dated 15.11.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate
1st Class, Karnal, in complaint case bearing CIS No.NACT/2409-2021 (CNR
No.HRKR030162082021 titled “Bhim Singh Vs. Sher Singh” , under Section
138 read with Section 142 of N.I. Act whereby the petitioner has been declared
as proclaimed person and FIR No.393 dated 18.06.2026 (Annexure P-5)
registered under Section 209 of BNS (earlier Section 174-A of IPC) at Police
Station Karnal Civil Lines, District Karnal, along with consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
complainant namely, Bhim Singh, had filed a complaint under Section 138
SHWETA
2026.09.15 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-50388-2026 (O&M)
-2-

read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner in respect of a
dishonoured cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- dated 10.04.2021, registered as CIS No.
NACT/2409-2021. The trial Court took cognizance of the complaint and
summoned the petitioner on 30.11.2021. Thereafter, notice, bailable warrants
and non-bailable warrants were issued from time to time, however, none of the
said processes was ever served personally on the petitioner as reflected from
Annexure P-2. It is further submitted that for the first time vide order dated
19.07.2023, the trial Court ordered issuance of a proclamation under Section
82 Cr.P.C. (Section 84 BNSS), returnable on 09.10.2023. Learned counsel
submits that the statement of the executing officer (Annexure P-3) records that
the proclamation was allegedly executed on 05.07.2023 that is prior to the date
on which its issuance was ordered, rendering such execution legally untenable.
Furthermore, it is asserted that that the proclamation was never publicly read
out in the area where the petitioner resides, as mandated under Section 82(2)
Cr.P.C. Despite the aforesaid irregularities, the petitioner was declared a
"Proclaimed Person" vide order dated 15.11.2023 (Annexure P-4), pursuant to
which FIR No. 393 dated 18.06.2026 (Annexure P-5) was registered under
Section 174-A IPC (Section 209 BNS). Learned counsel further contends that
in the meantime the petitioner and the complainant have amicably settled the
matter, the entire cheque amount has been paid, and the complainant has
withdrawn the complaint with no objection to the proclaimed-person
proceedings and attachment being dropped. Consequently, the trial Court, vide
order dated 07.07.2026 (Annexure P-8), the complaint was dismissed as
withdrawn and ordered release of the attached property. It is, thus, contended
that once the main complaint stands withdrawn, pursuant to the settlement
SHWETA
2026.09.15 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-50388-2026 (O&M)
-3-

between the parties, continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC
would amount to an abuse of process. Learned counsel places reliance upon
Daljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana , 2025 INSC 21, as well as other decisions of
this Court rendered on similar facts.
3. Notice of motion.
4. Learned State counsel, who is present in Court, accepts notice on
behalf of respondent-State. He does not dispute that the main complaint, out of
which the proclamation proceedings arose, has been dismissed as withdrawn
vide order dated 07.07.2026 (Annexure P-8), upon settlement between the
parties.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The statement of the executing officer (Annexure P-3) itself
shows that the proclamation was allegedly executed on 05.07.2023, whereas its
issuance was ordered only on 19.07.2023, rendering the proclamation
proceedings unsustainable in law. Furthermore, there is no material on record
to show compliance with the mandatory requirement of public reading of the
proclamation, as envisaged under Section 82(2) Cr.P.C.
7. It is further not in dispute that the main complaint stands settled
and withdrawn and that the entire cheque amount has been paid. In these
circumstances continuation of the proceedings arising from the impugned
declaration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. The very
foundation of the proclamation proceedings arose from complaint under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which was since been withdrawn
pursuant to a settlement between the parties.
SHWETA
2026.09.15 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-50388-2026 (O&M)
-4-

8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
material irregularities in the proclamation proceedings, and the settlement
arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the considered view that
continuation of impugned proceedings would amount to an abuse of the
process of law. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Daljit Singh Vs.
State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 21 . 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 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 aforestated, we agree with the findings made in
SHWETA
2026.09.15 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-50388-2026 (O&M)
-5-

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. Resultantly, the petition is allowed and accordingly the impugned
order dated 15.11.2023 (Annexure P-4), passed by learned Judicial Magistrate
1st Class, Karnal, in complaint case bearing CIS No. NACT/2409-2021 (CNR
No. HRKR030162082021), titled "Bhim Singh Vs. Sher Singh", whereby the
petitioner was declared a "Proclaimed Person"; and FIR No. 393 dated
18.06.2026 (Annexure P-5), registered under Section 209 of BNS
(corresponding to Section 174-A IPC) at Police Station Karnal Civil Lines,
District Karnal, along with all consequential and subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.
10. Petition stands disposed of in abovesaid terms.
SHWETA
2026.09.15 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-50388-2026 (O&M)
-6-

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
( NEERJA K. KALSON)
JUDGE
07.09.2026
shweta
1. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
2. Whether reportable Yes/No
SHWETA
2026.09.15 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document