Aman Malik vs State Of Haryana And Another

CRM-M-44752-2026 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( 140 )
CRM-M-44752-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 15.09.2026
AMAN MALIK
… Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
... Respondents
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Rajesh Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Tan u j Sharma, Asst. AG, Haryana.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of
the FIR in question, along with the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, declaring the petitioner a proclaimed
person, as well as all consequential and subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom.
Particulars Details
FIR No. & Date 840 dated 26.11.2025
Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Sections
(corresponding to Section 174-A of the IPC)
Police Station Civil Lines
District Karnal
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present
petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been preferred seeking
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.15 15:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-44752-2026 (O&M) -:2:-
quashing of the FIR in question, the order dated 18.11.2025 declaring the
petitioner a proclaimed person, and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom. It is submitted that the impugned FIR is entirely derivative of
the proceedings in complaint NACT-1191-21, titled Cholamandalam
Investment and Finance Company Ltd. vs. Aman Malik, which complaint
has since been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.02.2026 at the
specific instance of the complainant, upon full satisfaction of the
underlying loan liability, evidenced by “ NOC ” dated 24.11.2021. It is
further submitted that the petitioner has already surrendered and was
released on bail pursuant to order dated 16.02.2026 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal in CIS No. BA-488 of 2026. In view of
these subsequent and material developments, learned counsel submits that
continuation of the impugned FIR and the proceedings emanating
therefrom would serve no legitimate prosecutorial purpose and would
amount to an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner, accordingly,
seeks quashing of the same.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
present petition and defended the registration and continuation of the
impugned FIR. It is contended that the subsequent withdrawal of the
underlying complaint and the alleged satisfaction of the loan liability do
not, by themselves, efface the alleged offence under Section 209 of the
BNS, 2023, particularly when the petitioner had already been declared a
proclaimed person. Learned State counsel further submits that the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court is extraordinary in nature and is required to be
exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in cases where the
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.15 15:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-44752-2026 (O&M) -:3:-
continuation of criminal proceedings demonstrably amounts to an abuse of
the process of law or where interference is otherwise necessary to secure
the ends of justice. According to learned State counsel, the subsequent
developments relied upon by the petitioner do not furnish any legally
sustainable ground for obliterating the alleged offence or nullifying the
proceedings arising therefrom. It is, accordingly, urged that no exceptional
circumstance warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the
BNSS, 2023 has been made out and that the present petition, being devoid
of merit, deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable
length and have meticulously perused the paper book and the material
placed on record with their able assistance.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Daljit Singh vs. State of
Haryana & another, Criminal Appeal No.4359 of 2024 (arising out of
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.12606 of 2023), decided on 02.01.2025 ,
has authoritatively laid down the following principles governing the
exercise of jurisdiction in matters pertaining to prosecution under Section
174-A of the Indian Penal Code:-
(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;
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.15 15:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-44752-2026 (O&M) -:4:-
(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); Divya Verma v. State; Sameena & Anr. v.
State GNCT of Delhi & Anr. For the reasons afore-stated, we agree
with the findings made in 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.
5.1. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner has
been able to demonstrate that the very substratum of the impugned FIR
and the consequential proceedings has ceased to survive. The FIR in
question was registered under Section 209 of the BNS, 2023 consequent
upon the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Karnal, whereby the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person in
connection with complaint NACT-1191-21, titled Cholamandalam
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.15 15:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-44752-2026 (O&M) -:5:-
Investment and Finance Company Ltd. vs. Aman Malik. However, the said
complaint has subsequently been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
10.02.2026 at the instance of the complainant, upon full satisfaction of the
underlying loan liability, which is also evidenced by the NOC dated
24.11.2021.
5.2. It is further borne out from the record that the petitioner has
already surrendered before the competent Court and was released on bail
pursuant to order dated 16.02.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Karnal in CIS No. BA-488 of 2026. Thus, the subsequent
withdrawal of the foundational complaint, coupled with the admitted
satisfaction of the underlying liability and the petitioner's surrender before
the Court, constitute material subsequent developments which
substantially undermine the continuance of the prosecution emanating
from the order dated 18.11.2025.
5.3. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case,
continuation of the impugned FIR under Section 209 of the BNS, 2023,
together with the consequential proceedings arising from the order dated
18.11.2025 declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person, would serve no
meaningful prosecutorial purpose and would amount to permitting
criminal process to operate notwithstanding the disappearance of the very
circumstances which occasioned its initiation. This Court is, therefore, of
the considered view that continuation of such proceedings would amount
to an abuse of the process of law and would not advance the ends of
justice.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.15 15:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-44752-2026 (O&M) -:6:-
5.4. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction under
Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the present petition deserves to be
allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 840 dated 26.11.2025, registered under
Section 209 of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 174-A of the
IPC), at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal, along with the order dated
18.11.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal declaring
the petitioner a proclaimed person, and all consequential and subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
6. In view of the final adjudication of the present petition, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
15.09.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.15 15:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document