Prosecution under Section 174-A IPC quashed where proclamation was invalid and the underlying complaint was settled.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the proclamation and consequent declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed person were legally sustainable when the proclamation was allegedly executed before its issuance and the mandatory requirement of public reading was not shown to have been complied with.

The court held

The Court answered the issues in favour of the petitioner. It held that the proclamation proceedings were unsustainable due to material procedural irregularities and that continuation of the proceedings under Section 209 BNS/Section 174-A IPC was unwarranted after settlement and withdrawal of the underlying complaint.

It also directed

The petition was accordingly allowed; the order dated 15.11.2023 declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person, FIR No. 393 dated 18.06.2026 under Section 209 BNS, and all consequential and subsequent proceedings were quashed.

The petition and pending applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The petitioner faced a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act concerning a dishonoured cheque of ₹1,00,000 dated 10.04.2021.

¶ 2

The trial Court took cognizance and summoned him on 30.11.2021; thereafter, bailable and non-bailable warrants were issued, but the petitioner alleged that none was personally served upon him.

¶ 2

On 19.07.2023, the trial Court directed issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. However, the executing officer’s statement recorded that the proclamation had allegedly been executed on 05.07.2023—before its issuance—and there was no material showing that it had been publicly read in the locality as required by Section 82(2) Cr.P.C.

¶ 2, 6

The petitioner was declared a proclaimed person on 15.11.2023, followed by registration of FIR No. 393 dated 18.06.2026 under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, corresponding to Section 174-A IPC.

¶ 1, 2

Subsequently, the parties settled the cheque dispute; the cheque amount was paid, and the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.07.2026, with the attached property ordered to be released.

¶ 2, 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the proclamation and consequent declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed person were legally sustainable when the proclamation was allegedly executed before its issuance and the mandatory requirement of public reading was not shown to have been complied with.

¶ 6

ii.2. Whether continuation of the proceedings under Section 209 BNS/Section 174-A IPC was justified after settlement and withdrawal of the underlying complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶ 7–8

03Law Applied

The Court applied Section 82(2) Cr.P.C., which requires prescribed modes of publication of a proclamation, including public reading in the locality where the person ordinarily resides; non-compliance renders the proclamation proceedings unsustainable.

¶ 6

The Court also considered Section 209 BNS, corresponding to Section 174-A IPC, which criminalises failure to appear in response to a proclamation.

¶ 8

Relying on Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 21, the Court recognised that the offence under Section 174-A IPC is an independent, substantive offence and may ordinarily continue even if the proclamation is subsequently extinguished; however, the court trying that offence may take subsequent developments, including the termination of the underlying case, into account and close the proceedings where the circumstances warrant.

¶ 8

The Court further relied on the inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law in view of the settlement and withdrawal of the foundational complaint.

¶ 7–8

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138 Section 142

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 209

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 82

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 84

04Reasoning

The Court found the proclamation proceedings fundamentally defective because the executing officer’s statement showed execution on 05.07.2023, whereas the order directing issuance was passed only on 19.07.2023. This chronological inconsistency made the alleged execution legally untenable.

¶ 6

Further, the record contained no proof that the proclamation had been publicly read as mandated by Section 82(2) Cr.P.C.

¶ 6

Independently, the underlying cheque complaint had been amicably settled, the entire amount had been paid, and the complaint had been withdrawn with the complainant’s consent.

¶ 4, 7

Although Daljit Singh treats Section 174-A IPC as a standalone offence, the Court held that, given the invalid proclamation proceedings and the disappearance of the foundation of the dispute, continuation of the consequential proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of process.

¶ 7–8