Ashok vs State Of Haryana

CRM M-35631 of 2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM M-35631 of 2026
Date of Decision: 03.09.2026
Ashok ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT

Present : Mr. Dharam Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Parmod Kumar, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate with
Ms. Ankita, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral)
CRM-35280 of 2026
Allowed as prayed for.
The date of hearing is preponed and the main petition is
taken up for hearing today itself.
CRM M-35631 of 2026
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section
528 of the BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to quash FIR No. 34 dated
24.01.2026, registered under Section 209 of the BNS, 2023
(corresponding to Section 174-A of the IPC), at Police Station
Sector-17 HUDA, Jagadhari, Yamunanagar, District Yamunanagar
AMIT RANA
2026.09.11 17:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM M-35631 of 2026 2
(Annexure P-2), whereby, the petitioner is facing trial as a proclaimed
offender.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submits that
the petitioner is a dairy farmer and was maintaining his saving
account with State Bank of India, Mussimbal Branch, District
Yamuna Nagar. The petitioner had issued a cheque to the respondent
No. 2. However, the said cheque was dishonoured and, ultimately, the
proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 were ordered to be initiated against him. When the petitioner
came to know about the criminal complaint against him, he
approached the respondent No. 2 and regularized his loan account on
26.03.2024. He was under the bona-fide impression that the
respondent No. 2 had withdrawn the complaint against him. However,
when he failed to appear before the trial Court, the proceedings under
Section 82 Cr.P.C. were ordered to be initiated against him.
Ultimately, the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender in the
present case and in compliance of the orders passed by the trial Court,
one FIR No. 34 dated 24.01.2026 under Section 209 of the BNS, 2023
(corresponding to Section 174-A of the IPC), Police Station Sector-17
HUDA, Jagadhari, Yamunanagar, was ordered to be registered against
him. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached respondent No. 2 and
on 08.06.2026 respondent No. 2 had withdrawn the complaint from
the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagadhri, which is
apparent from order (Annexure P-4) passed by the trial Court.
AMIT RANA
2026.09.11 17:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM M-35631 of 2026 3
Learned counsel further submits that, in fact, the petitioner was never
served with summons/warrants by the trial Court and he has been
wrongly declared as a proclaimed person in the present case. He
further submits that the very purpose of the impugned FIR was only
to procure the presence of the petitioner, and since the matter has
already been compromised between the parties and the complaint has
been withdrawn by the respondent No. 2, the impugned FIR No. 34
dated 24.01.2026, registered under Section 209 of the BNS, 2023
(corresponding to Section 174-A of the IPC), at Police Station
Sector-17 HUDA, Jagadhari, Yamunanagar, District Yamunanagar,
(Annexure P-2), and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are
liable to be quashed by this Court.
3. 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)
AMIT RANA
2026.09.11 17:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM M-35631 of 2026 4
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
st
Magistrate, 1 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.”
4. A perusal of the above judgment would show that in a
similar case where the FIR had been registered under Section 174-A
IPC in view of the order passed in proceedings under Section 138 of
the Act, while declaring the petitioner therein as a proclaimed
offender, a co-ordinate Bench after relying upon various judgments
observed that once the main petition under Section 138 of the Act
stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the
parties, the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC is
nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The said aspect was one of
AMIT RANA
2026.09.11 17:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM M-35631 of 2026 5
the main considerations for allowing the petition and setting aside the
order declaring the petitioner therein as a proclaimed person as well
as quashing of the FIR under Section 174-A IPC.
5. Another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled
as “Ashok Madan vs. 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 174A
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 174A 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 174A I.P.C. At
Police Station Kotwali, District Faridabad, as well as
consequential proceedings shall stand quashed.”
6. In the present case also, the main case has already been
withdrawn by the complainant. Consequently, the continuation of the
proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR No. 34 dated
24.01.2026, registered under Section 209 of the BNS, 2023
AMIT RANA
2026.09.11 17:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM M-35631 of 2026 6
(corresponding to Section 174-A of the IPC), at Police Station
Sector-17 HUDA, Jagadhari, Yamunanagar, District Yamunanagar
would be an abuse of process of the Court. Similar observations have
been made by this Court in the matter of “Anil Kumar Versus
Jitender Kumar and another, CRM-M- 5878-2022 decided on
06.04.2022”, “Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar and another,
CRM-M-5755-2022 decided on 06.04.2022” and “Varinder
Kumar @ Virender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and another,
CRM-M-42551- 2021 decided on 19.04.2022” .
8. In view of the above, the FIR No. 34 dated 24.01.2026,
registered under Section 209 of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to
Section 174-A of the IPC), at Police Station Sector-17 HUDA,
Jagadhari, Yamunanagar, District Yamunanagar alongwith all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby ordered to be
quashed qua the petitioner only.
9. The petition stands allowed.
03.09.2024 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
AMIT RANA
2026.09.11 17:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document