Quashing the underlying FIR and proclamation order warrants quashing Section 174-A proceedings.

FIR No. 184 dated 19.08.2008 was registered at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala, under Sections 363 and 376 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Despite service of summons, the petitioner failed to appear; consequently, proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated and he was declared a proclaimed person by order dated 06.02.2010.

On that basis, FIR No. 8 dated 20.02.2020 was registered against him under Section 174-A IPC.

Subsequently, the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person and all consequential proceedings were set aside by a Coordinate Bench on 10.04.2024, and the foundational FIR No. 184 of 2008 was quashed on 26.11.2024.

The petitioner therefore sought quashing of the Section 174-A IPC FIR and all proceedings arising from it under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC could continue after the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person had been set aside.

Whether continuation of the Section 174-A IPC proceedings was sustainable after the foundational FIR, from which the proclamation proceedings arose, had itself been quashed.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice.

Section 174-A IPC penalises failure to appear in response to a proclamation issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C.; therefore, proceedings under Section 174-A IPC are consequential to valid proclamation proceedings.

The Court relied on Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1, as applied in Divyanshu Budhiraja v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-21702-2024, decided on 20.04.2026, for the principle that once the main criminal case has concluded or its substratum has disappeared, continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC may serve no useful purpose and amount to an abuse of process.

The Court further recognised that proclamation is a coercive mechanism intended to secure an accused’s presence and facilitate adjudication, not an independent punitive proceeding; once the main proceedings are concluded, its rationale substantially ceases.

The Section 174-A IPC FIR arose solely from the proclamation and the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person in connection with FIR No. 184 of 2008.

Since the proclamation order dated 06.02.2010 and all consequential proceedings had already been set aside, the legal foundation for the Section 174-A IPC prosecution no longer existed.

In addition, the foundational FIR itself had been quashed by a Coordinate Bench.

Applying the principle that continuation of a consequential prosecution is unwarranted when the proceedings giving rise to it have been annulled, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by continuing FIR No. 8 of 2020.

Its continuation would instead amount to an abuse of the process of law.

FIR No. 8 dated 20.02.2020, registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala, Punjab, along with all subsequent proceedings arising from it, was quashed.

Any pending application was also ordered to stand disposed of.