Section 209 BNS proceedings are quashed after settlement and withdrawal of the underlying Section 138 complaint.

Respondent No. 2, Adgel Corporation, instituted five complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioners, bearing NACT Nos. 212/2019, 315/2019, 316/2019, 455/2019 and 456/2019.

On 22 May 2025, owing to the petitioners’ absence despite proclamation proceedings, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad declared them proclaimed persons and directed the concerned SHO to take action under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 174-A IPC.

An FIR was thereafter registered as FIR No. 157 dated 6 May 2026 at Police Station Faridabad Kotwali.

Subsequently, the parties entered into a settlement dated 8 May 2026, following which respondent No. 2 withdrew the five complaints after receiving the disputed amount; the complaints were dismissed as withdrawn on 8 June 2026.

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the proclamation order, the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

1. Whether proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS, corresponding to Section 174-A IPC, can continue after the underlying complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have been settled and withdrawn?

2. Whether the FIR registered pursuant to the Magistrate’s direction to the police, without a complaint by the concerned public servant as contemplated under Section 195 Cr.P.C., was legally maintainable?

3. Whether the order declaring the petitioners proclaimed persons was sustainable when the proclamation proceedings were allegedly not conducted in accordance with the statutory requirements?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 to prevent abuse of the process of law.

Proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS, corresponding to Section 174-A IPC, constitute an independent and substantive offence; however, relying on Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana and another, Criminal Appeal No. 4359 of 2024, and Ashok Madaan v. State of Haryana and another, 2020(4) RCR (Criminal) 87, the Court held that continuation of such proceedings may be quashed where the underlying Section 138 NI Act complaint has been settled and withdrawn.

The Court further relied on Mohammad Hanif Attari v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-51049-2019, and related precedents, which recognise that continuation of Section 174-A IPC proceedings after settlement of the principal cheque case may amount to abuse of process.

Under Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., cognizance of an offence falling within Sections 172 to 188 IPC, including Section 174-A IPC, requires a written complaint by the concerned public servant or an authorised superior public servant; a police FIR alone cannot validly initiate such prosecution.

The proclamation process must also comply with the requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C./Section 84 BNSS.

The Court found that the FIR arose solely from the petitioners’ alleged absence in the Section 138 NI Act complaints and that those complaints had subsequently been withdrawn pursuant to a settlement after payment of the disputed amount.

Although the offence relating to failure to appear is legally independent, its continuation in the present circumstances would serve no useful purpose because the proceedings in which the petitioners’ presence was required no longer survived.

The Court additionally held that the FIR was initiated merely on the Magistrate’s direction to the SHO and not through the written complaint required by Section 195 Cr.P.C.; this defect independently vitiated the initiation of proceedings.

The Court also observed that the proclamation proceedings had not been conducted strictly in accordance with the statutory procedure.

Accordingly, continuation of the FIR and the consequential proceedings would constitute abuse of the process of law and miscarriage of justice.

It held that, after settlement and withdrawal of the underlying Section 138 NI Act complaints, continuation of proceedings under Section 209 BNS/Section 174-A IPC was unjustified.

The Court also held that the FIR was procedurally defective for want of a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

Consequently, all six petitions were allowed, the order dated 22 May 2025 declaring the petitioners proclaimed persons was quashed, and FIR No. 157 dated 6 May 2026 under Section 209 BNS, along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, was quashed.