The Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirms that once the main FIR is quashed on settlement, ancillary criminal proceedings solely arising from a party’s non-appearance (under Section 174-A IPC) cannot be sustained; serves as binding precedent within the jurisdiction, upholding existing law.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/28005/2025 of VIKRAM TYAGI Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC010800602025 |
| Date of Registration | 19-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law — Quashing of FIR; Section 174-A IPC; Section 528 BNSS |
| Questions of Law | Whether proceedings under Section 174-A IPC survive after settlement and quashing of main FIR? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts across India, especially in matters involving ancillary criminal prosecutions after settlement |
| Follows | The practice of quashing ancillary proceedings where the connected main FIR is already quashed on merits |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment directly clarifies the fate of Section 174-A IPC proceedings when the main FIR is quashed on settlement.
- Counsel may now confidently seek quashing of FIRs for non-appearance in such circumstances in Punjab & Haryana.
- The non-appearance due to miscommunication or similar reasons, when remedied by settlement and quashing of the main FIR, cannot justify continued prosecution under Section 174-A IPC.
- The State’s opposition, in absence of factual disputes, is unlikely to override this precedent.
- Lawyers should document the sequence of quashing and the connection between the main FIR and the ancillary Section 174-A FIR.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the FIR under Section 174-A IPC was an outcome of the petitioner’s being declared a proclaimed offender in the main case.
- After recording that the main FIR had already been quashed based on a compromise between the parties, the Court reasoned that there was “no justification” to proceed with the ancillary prosecution.
- The Court stressed that, as the underlying dispute had ended with the quashing of the main FIR, allowing further prosecution for non-appearance would amount to a purposeless exercise.
- Accordingly, the Court invoked its powers under Section 528 BNSS to quash the secondary FIR and all related proceedings.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The present FIR under Section 174-A is only a consequence of the earlier order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender.
- The main FIR, which gave rise to the petitioner’s non-appearance, has been quashed based on a compromise.
- Due to a miscommunication of dates with counsel, the petitioner failed to appear, resulting in being declared a proclaimed offender.
- All ancillary proceedings should thus be quashed in light of the quashing of the main case.
State
- The State opposed the petition for quashing the ancillary FIR.
- However, the State did not dispute the factual sequence or the settlement behind the main FIR’s quashing.
Factual Background
The dispute originated from an FIR against the petitioner, following which he was declared a proclaimed offender due to non-appearance, allegedly because of miscommunication with his counsel. This secondary FIR was registered under Section 174-A of IPC in August 2023 at City Bhiwani Police Station. Subsequently, the main FIR was quashed after the parties reached a compromise, and the petitioner sought quashing of the Section 174-A FIR in light of this development. The State’s reply opposed the quashing but did not contest the facts.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court addressed Section 174-A IPC, which penalizes failure to appear after being declared a proclaimed offender.
- The power to quash proceedings was exercised under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
- The Court’s interpretation was practical and purposive: if the main case (underlying the proclamation) is quashed on merits, prosecution under Section 174-A is not legally sustainable.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were reported; the decision was authored solely by Justice Anoop Chitkara.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment upholds and clarifies existing legal position regarding ancillary criminal proceedings post-compromise and quashing of primary FIRs.