Jatin Chawla vs State Of Haryana And Another

CRM-M-51588-2026 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(132)
CRM-M-51588-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.09.2026
JATIN CHAWLA … Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ... Respondents
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Dr. Vikas Rohal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tan u j Sharma, Asst. AG, Haryana.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding
to Section 482 Cr.P.C.), seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings and
the order dated 25.08.2025 ( Annexure P-2 ), whereby the petitioner was
declared a proclaimed person, on account of the subsequent full and final
settlement of the underlying dispute and the No-Dues Certificate issued by
the complainant. The particulars of the FIR sought to be quashed are as
under: -
Particulars Details
132 dated 27.01.2026
FIR No. & Date

Sections
209 BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 174-A IPC)
Civil Line, Sirsa, District Sirsa, Haryana
Police Station
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 09:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-51588-2026 (O&M) -:2:-
1.1. It is further prayed that, during the pendency of the present
petition, further proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR, as also all
consequential/coercive proceedings qua the petitioner, may kindly be
stayed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
FIR emanates from proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, arising out of dishonour of a cheque for 25,398/-.
₹
Owing to the petitioner’s non-appearance, he was declared a proclaimed
person vide order dated 25.08.2025, pursuant to which the FIR under
Section 209 BNS came to be registered. It is further submitted that the
underlying monetary dispute has since been amicably and finally resolved
for 32,000/-, duly paid to respondent No.2 through UPI on 07.08.2026, ₹
whereafter the complainant issued a Receipt & No-Dues Certificate dated
03.09.2026 (Annexure P-3/P-4), acknowledging full satisfaction and
absence of any surviving claim. It is contended that the substratum of the
proceedings under Section 209 BNS has consequently ceased to exist and
that the petitioner’s non-appearance was neither deliberate nor intentional.
Reliance is placed upon Ashok Madan vs. State of Haryana and another,
2020(4) RCR (Criminal) 87 ; Sunil Kumar vs. State of Haryana and
another, CRM-M-15534-2023, decided on 20.07.2023 ; and State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 . Accordingly, quashing
of the FIR and consequential proceedings has been prayed for.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon
meticulous perusal of the paper-book with his able assistance, this Court
finds that the relief sought cannot be granted merely on the strength of the
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 09:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-51588-2026 (O&M) -:3:-
subsequent compromise. Once an accused has been declared a proclaimed
person, such order cannot be treated as effaced merely because the
underlying dispute has subsequently been settled; the accused must first
submit to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and seek recall/set aside of the
proclamation order in accordance with law. The subsequent settlement,
though relevant to the substantive proceedings, does not, by itself, furnish
a sufficient ground for exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court to nullify the consequences of the petitioner’s non-appearance.
3.1. The reliance placed upon Ashok Madan’s case (supra) and
Sunil Kumar’s case (supra, does not advance the petitioner’s case on the
peculiar facts herein, as the said decisions turn upon their respective
factual and procedural settings and do not dispense with the requirement
of appropriate proceedings for recall of the proclamation. Likewise, the
principles in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) governing exercise of inherent
jurisdiction, do not contemplate interference as a matter of course where
the petitioner seeks to overcome proceedings arising from his own non-
appearance and subsequent declaration as a proclaimed person.
Consequently, no exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is made out.
3.2. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed . The petitioner
is directed to appear before the Trial Court and move an appropriate
application for recall/set aside of the order declaring him a proclaimed
person, and may thereafter seek regular bail and/or appropriate relief for
compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, the said offence being compoundable in
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 09:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-51588-2026 (O&M) -:4:-
accordance with law. In the event such application(s) are filed, the Trial
Court shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law,
expeditiously and preferably within seven days from the date of filing
thereof.
4. Consequent upon the final adjudication of the principal matter,
all pending miscellaneous applications whether arising out of or ancillary
to the present proceedings shall stand disposed of in tandem . Inasmuch as
the substantive rights of the parties have been definitively determined, the
reliefs sought in the said interlocutory applications are rendered entirely
infructuous, obviating the necessity for any separate or further judicial
orders.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
11.09.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 09:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document