Withdrawal of the underlying Section 138 complaint warrants quashing of consequential Section 209 BNS proceedings.

In brief

The question

Whether proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS, 2023, corresponding to Section 174-A IPC, could be quashed after the underlying complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been withdrawn pursuant to settlement between the parties?

The court held

The petition was allowed.

It also directed

FIR No. 34 dated 24.01.2026, registered under Section 209 of the BNS, 2023, corresponding to Section 174-A IPC, at Police Station Sector-17 HUDA, Jagadhari, Yamunanagar, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed qua the petitioner only.

01Facts

The petitioner, a dairy farmer, maintained a savings account with the State Bank of India and had issued a cheque to respondent No. 2.

p. 2

Upon dishonour of the cheque, proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were initiated against him.

p. 2

The petitioner subsequently regularised his loan account on 26.03.2024 and believed that the complaint had been withdrawn.

p. 2

As he failed to appear before the trial Court, proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated and he was declared a proclaimed offender.

p. 2

Consequently, FIR No. 34 dated 24.01.2026 was registered under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 174-A IPC, at Police Station Sector-17 HUDA, Jagadhari, Yamunanagar.

p. 2

Thereafter, respondent No. 2 withdrew the underlying complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagadhri, on 08.06.2026.

p. 2

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings under Section 528 BNSS, 2023.

02Issues

i.Whether proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS, 2023, corresponding to Section 174-A IPC, could be quashed after the underlying complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been withdrawn pursuant to settlement between the parties?

p. 2, 6

ii.Whether continuation of the proclamation-related FIR, arising solely from the petitioner’s non-appearance in the withdrawn underlying complaint, would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court?

pp. 4–6

03Law Applied

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

p. 1

The FIR was registered under Section 209 of the BNS, 2023, corresponding to Section 174-A IPC, concerning failure to appear after proclamation.

p. 1

The Court relied on Baldev Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and Another, CRM-M-43813-2018, decided on 29.01.2019, which held that continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC becomes an abuse of process when the underlying Section 138 NI Act complaint has been withdrawn pursuant to an amicable settlement.

pp. 3–5

It also relied on Ashok Madan v. State of Haryana and Another, 2020(4) RCR (Criminal) 87, which held that where the absence-related default in the principal proceedings has subsequently been regularised, continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC is unjustified.

p. 5

The Court further referred to Anil Kumar v. Jitender Kumar and Another and Varinder Kumar @ Virender Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another.

p. 6

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 209

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 82

04Reasoning

The Court found that the impugned FIR had arisen only because of the petitioner’s non-appearance in the Section 138 NI Act complaint.

p. 2, 6

Since respondent No. 2 had withdrawn the underlying complaint after the parties had resolved their dispute, the foundational proceedings in which the petitioner had allegedly failed to appear no longer survived.

p. 6

Applying the principles in Baldev Chand Bansal and Ashok Madan, the Court held that continuation of the independent proclamation-related prosecution, in these circumstances, would serve no legitimate purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

pp. 3–6

The Court accordingly exercised its inherent jurisdiction to terminate the FIR and consequential proceedings qua the petitioner.