Withdrawal of the foundational complaint may warrant quashing Section 209 BNS proceedings when their prosecutorial substratum disappears.

The petitioner sought exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing FIR No. 840 dated 26 November 2025, registered under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), corresponding to Section 174-A IPC, at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal.

The FIR arose from the petitioner being declared a proclaimed person by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal, on 18 November 2025 in complaint NACT-1191-21, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. v. Aman Malik.

Subsequently, the underlying complaint was dismissed as withdrawn on 10 February 2026 at the complainant’s instance after satisfaction of the loan liability, supported by an NOC dated 24 November 2021.

The petitioner also surrendered and was released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, on 16 February 2026.

The State opposed quashing, contending that the offence under Section 209 BNS/Section 174-A IPC was independent and was not extinguished by withdrawal of the underlying complaint or satisfaction of the liability.

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR registered under Section 209 BNS, along with the proclamation order and consequential proceedings, in view of the subsequent withdrawal of the foundational complaint and satisfaction of the underlying liability.

Whether continuation of the prosecution for the stand-alone offence corresponding to Section 174-A IPC would amount to an abuse of the process of law where the underlying complaint had been withdrawn and the petitioner had surrendered and obtained bail.

The Court applied Section 528 BNSS, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., which empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice.

Section 209 BNS, corresponding to Section 174-A IPC, penalises failure to appear in response to a proclamation and constitutes a stand-alone offence, although proceedings under it can be initiated only after issuance of the requisite proclamation.

Relying on Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 4359 of 2024, decided on 2 January 2025, the Court held that the offence is independent of the original proceedings, but that the court dealing with such prosecution may take subsequent developments in the foundational case into account and close the proceedings where the circumstances so warrant.

The inherent power under Section 528 BNSS is to be exercised sparingly where continuation of proceedings would constitute an abuse of process or would not advance the ends of justice.

Although the offence under Section 209 BNS is legally distinct from the underlying complaint, the Court found that the factual basis for the proclamation and the consequential FIR had materially disappeared.

The foundational complaint had been withdrawn by the complainant after full satisfaction of the loan liability, and the petitioner had surrendered before the competent court and obtained bail.

In these peculiar circumstances, permitting the prosecution to continue would serve no meaningful prosecutorial purpose and would allow criminal process to operate despite the disappearance of the circumstances that had occasioned its initiation.

The Court therefore held that continuation of the FIR and related proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would not advance the ends of justice.

FIR No. 840 dated 26 November 2025 under Section 209 BNS, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal, the order dated 18 November 2025 declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person, and all consequential and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed qua the petitioner under Section 528 BNSS.

All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.