Subsequent settlement does not efface proclamation; accused must first seek recall before the Trial Court.

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 132 dated 27.01.2026, registered at Police Station Civil Line, Sirsa, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), corresponding to Section 174-A IPC, along with the order dated 25.08.2025 declaring him a proclaimed person.

The FIR arose from the petitioner’s non-appearance in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning dishonour of a cheque for ₹25,398/-.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties settled the underlying monetary dispute for ₹32,000/-, which was paid to the complainant through UPI on 07.08.2026. The complainant thereafter issued a Receipt and No-Dues Certificate dated 03.09.2026 acknowledging full satisfaction and absence of any surviving claim.

The petitioner contended that the settlement eliminated the substratum of the proceedings under Section 209 BNS and that his non-appearance was neither deliberate nor intentional.

The Court considered its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the statutory consequences of non-appearance under Section 209 BNS, corresponding to Section 174-A IPC.

It applied the principle that once an accused has been declared a proclaimed person, a subsequent compromise of the underlying dispute does not, by itself, efface the proclamation or justify quashing the proceedings arising from the accused’s non-appearance; the accused must first approach the Trial Court for recall or setting aside of the proclamation in accordance with law.

The Court also considered Ashok Madan v. State of Haryana, 2020(4) RCR (Criminal) 87, Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-15534-2023, decided on 20.07.2023, and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, but held that these authorities did not mandate interference in the present factual and procedural circumstances.

The Court noted that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compoundable in accordance with law.

The Court held that the settlement and No-Dues Certificate were relevant to the substantive cheque-dishonour proceedings but did not automatically invalidate the petitioner’s prior non-appearance or the resulting proclamation order.

Since the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person, he was required first to submit to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and seek recall or setting aside of that order through the appropriate procedure.

The Court found no exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR merely on the basis of the subsequent compromise.

The authorities relied upon by the petitioner were distinguished as turning on their own factual and procedural settings and as not dispensing with the requirement of seeking appropriate relief against the proclamation before the Trial Court.

The petitioner was directed to appear before the Trial Court and move an appropriate application for recall or setting aside of the order declaring him a proclaimed person. He was thereafter permitted to seek regular bail and/or appropriate relief for compounding the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The Trial Court was directed to consider and decide such applications expeditiously, preferably within seven days of their filing.

All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of as infructuous following the final adjudication of the principal petition.