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

Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, read with Section 420 IPC, alleging that the petitioner had borrowed ₹1,15,000 and issued a cheque that was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds.

During the pendency of the complaint, the petitioner failed to appear and was declared a proclaimed person under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by order dated 24.09.2025.

An FIR was thereafter registered under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 174-A IPC.

The parties subsequently settled the dispute; the complainant received the cheque amount and withdrew the complaint, which was dismissed on 16.01.2026.

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

1. Whether the proceedings under Section 209 BNS could continue after the underlying complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been settled and withdrawn.

2. Whether the FIR registered under Section 209 BNS was legally maintainable when it was initiated pursuant to a Magistrate’s direction, without a complaint in writing as required under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

3. Whether the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person under Section 84 BNSS was liable to be quashed.

Section 209 BNS, corresponding to Section 174-A IPC, creates an independent and substantive offence which may technically survive even after the proclamation proceedings are extinguished, as held in Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana and another, Criminal Appeal No. 4359 of 2024.

However, where the underlying complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been settled and withdrawn, continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC may amount to abuse of process, as recognised in Daljit Singh, Mohammad Hanif Attari, Ashok Madaan, Smriti, and Narinder Pal Singh.

Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. requires cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC, including Section 174-A IPC, to be taken only upon a written complaint by the concerned public servant or a superior public servant; a Magistrate cannot merely direct the police to register an FIR for that offence.

The High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The FIR under Section 209 BNS originated solely from the petitioner’s alleged non-appearance in the cheque-dishonour complaint.

Although the offence under Section 209 BNS is independent in character, the principal complaint had been amicably settled, the cheque amount had been paid, and the complainant had withdrawn the complaint; consequently, no useful purpose would be served by continuing proceedings intended only to secure the petitioner’s presence in that complaint.

Independently, the FIR was procedurally defective because it was registered on the trial Court’s direction without the written complaint contemplated by Section 195 Cr.P.C., rendering the initiation of proceedings contrary to the mandatory statutory procedure.

The Court also found that the proclamation order dated 24.09.2025 had not been passed strictly in accordance with law.

The petition was allowed.

The order dated 24.09.2025 declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person, FIR No. 14 dated 15.01.2026 registered under Section 209 BNS at Police Station Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar, and all consequential proceedings were quashed.