Parvesh Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Another

CRM-M-4298-2026 (O&M) -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
280

CRM-M-4298-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 01.09.2026
Parvesh Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Mr.
Present:- Inderjeet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

None for respondent No.2, despite service.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)


1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the order
dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Sub Division Bilaspur, whereby the petitioner was
declared a proclaimed person under Section 84 of the BNSS in Complaint
No.NIA/109/2022, titled Rajiv Kumar v. Parvesh Sharma , filed under
Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N. I.
Act’) read with Section 420 of IPC as also for quashing of FIR No. 14 dated
15.01.2026, registered under Section 209 of BNS (which corresponds to
Section 174-A of IPC) at Police Station Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar, and

all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.02 13:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-4298-2026 (O&M) -2-

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this
petition are that respondent No.2 had instituted the aforesaid complaint
alleging that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- from him and
towards repayment thereof, had issued a cheque which was dishonoured for
insufficiency of funds. Consequently, the complaint under Sections 138/142
of the N. I. Act read with Section 420 IPC was filed against the petitioner. The
petitioner was declared a proclaimed person, vide order dated 24.09.2025 as
he did not appear before the learned trial Court, despite the expiry of the
mandatory period of 30 days of date of publication of proclamation. Pursuant
thereto, the impugned FIR was also registered against the petitioner.
Subsequently, the matter between the parties was settled and on a statement
made by learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant that he did not
wish to continue with the complaint, the complaint was dismissed as
withdrawn by the learned trial Court vide order dated 16.01.2026.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the
settlement between the parties and withdrawal of the complaint by respondent
No.2, the very substratum of the proceedings no longer survives. He submits
that the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person in the complaint
case, which itself has subsequently been withdrawn pursuant to the settlement.
Learned counsel further submits that this Court, in various cases, has
exercised its inherent jurisdiction for quashing the order declaring an accused
as a proclaimed person and the consequential proceedings where the
underlying dispute has subsequently been settled between the parties.
Reliance has been placed upon judgments passed by this Court in “Smriti v.
State of Haryana and another”, CRM-M-20500-2022, decided on
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.02 13:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-4298-2026 (O&M) -3-

12.05.2022 and “Narinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab and another”,
CRM-M-41946-2020, decided on 26.05.2022 , wherein in similar
circumstances, FIRs registered under Section 174-A IPC were quashed after
settlement of the main complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2, despite
service of notice.
5. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner by
submitting that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order as well
as in subsequent proceedings initiated against the petitioner including
registration of impugned FIR. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
6. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
7. The undisputed factual position emerging from the record is that
the impugned FIR under Section 209 of BNS owes its origin to proceedings
initiated in a complaint under Section 138 of the N. I. Act, instituted by
respondent No.2 against the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that during
pendency of the said complaint, the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed
person vide order dated 24.09.2025 and, pursuant thereto, the impugned FIR
came to be registered. A perusal of the record further reveals that
subsequently the parties amicably resolved their dispute and respondent No.2
withdrew the aforementioned complaint after receipt of the cheque amount in
question. The order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the learned trial Court clearly
records that matter has been compromised and the complainant did not want
to continue with the said complaint. In the aforesaid backdrop, the seminal
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.02 13:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-4298-2026 (O&M) -4-

question which arises for consideration is as to whether continuation of
proceedings under Section 209 of BNS would survive once the principal
proceedings under Section 138 of the N. I. Act already stand withdrawn on the
basis of compromise between the parties.
8. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra. Reference can be
made to authority cited as Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana and another,
Criminal Appeal No. 4359 of 2024, decided on 02.01.2025 , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held 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. However, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court quashed the impugned FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC
since, inter alia, the original offence in the form of criminal complaint under
Section 138 of N. I. Act in the said case had been settled and withdrawn by
the rival parties. Reliance can also be placed upon Mohammad Hanif Attari
v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-51049-2019, decided on 06.07.2023 , wherein
this Court, while relying upon earlier judgments rendered in Baldev Chand
Bansal v. State of Haryana and another, CRM-M-43813-2018, decided on
29.01.2019 ; Vikas Sharma v. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another, 2017(3)
L.A.R. 584 ; Microqual Techno Limited and others v. State of Haryana and
another, 2015(32) RCR (Criminal) 790 ; and Rajneesh Khanna Vs. State of
Haryana and another, 2017(3) L.A.R. 555 , has held that where the principal
complaint under Section 138 of the N. I. Act stands withdrawn on account of
compromise, continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would
amount to abuse of the process of law.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.02 13:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-4298-2026 (O&M) -5-

9. Similarly, in Ashok Madaan v. State of Haryana and another,
2020(4) RCR (Criminal) 87 , it was held by this Court that though the offence
under Section 174-A IPC may be an independent offence, yet where the FIR
had been registered only because of absence of the accused in the main
complaint and the said complaint itself no longer survives, continuation of
proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would not serve any useful purpose and
would amount to misuse of the process of Court. Reference may also be made
to the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in Smriti’s
case (supra) and Narinder Pal Singh’s case (supra) , wherein also, this Court
quashed FIRs registered under Section 174-A IPC after settlement and
withdrawal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act.
10. The ratio flowing from the aforesaid judgments squarely governs
the present case. Once the substantive proceedings under Section 138 of the
N. I. Act have culminated in a compromise and the complaint itself has been
withdrawn, continuation of criminal proceedings under Section 209 of BNS
IPC would be wholly unjustified. The very purpose behind initiation of
proceedings under Section 209 of BNS was to secure the presence of the
petitioner in the complaint proceedings. After settlement of the dispute and
withdrawal of the complaint, no fruitful purpose would be served by
permitting the impugned FIR to continue.
11. Moreso, a reference can be made to the bar contained under
Section 195 Cr.P.C. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Pardeep Kumar Vs.
State of Punjab and another, CRM-M-41656-2023, decided on 23.08.2023 ,
after undertaking an elaborate examination of Sections 174-A IPC and 195
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.02 13:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-4298-2026 (O&M) -6-

Cr.P.C., has categorically held that cognizance of an offence under Section
174-A IPC cannot be taken except upon a complaint in writing by the
concerned public servant or by a public servant to whom he is
administratively subordinate. It was observed that though Section 174-A IPC
is a cognizable offence, yet the same continues to fall within the ambit of
Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., as the said provision expressly applies to
offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC. It was further held that
the Magistrate, after declaring an accused as proclaimed person, cannot
simply direct the police to register an FIR under Section 174-A IPC and set
the criminal law into motion through the police machinery, but is required to
adopt the procedure prescribed under Section 195 Cr.P.C. by filing a
complaint before the competent Court.
12. In the present case also, the impugned FIR under Section 209 of
BNS came to be registered merely on the basis of directions issued by the
learned trial Court to the SHO concerned after declaring the petitioner as
proclaimed person, without institution of any complaint as contemplated
under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Thus, the very initiation of proceedings stands
vitiated being contrary to the mandatory statutory requirement. Consequently,
continuation of the impugned proceedings would amount to abuse of the
process of law and cannot be permitted to continue.
13. Apart from the above, this Court also finds that the impugned
order dated 24.09.2025 was not passed strictly in accordance with law.
14. In view of the settled legal position and keeping in view the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the
considered opinion that continuation of the impugned FIR and consequential
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.02 13:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-4298-2026 (O&M) -7-

proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and miscarriage of
justice. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and order dated
24.09.2025 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sub
Division Bilaspur, whereby the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person
under Section 84 of the BNSS in the aforementioned complaint and also the
FIR No. 14 dated 15.01.2026, registered under Section 209 of BNS at Police
Station Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar, are hereby quashed along with all
the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom.


01.09.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Waseem R. Waseem Waseem R. R. Ansari R. Ansari Ansari Ansari
JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.02 13:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document