The court reaffirms that once the underlying complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is withdrawn due to settlement, continuation of prosecution under Section 174-A IPC amounts to abuse of process. This judgment upholds established precedent, serving as binding authority for similar cases under the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s jurisdiction, particularly in cheque dishonour cases where the accused was declared a proclaimed person.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/19080/2024 of DARSHANA DAGAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC010470132024 |
| Date of Registration | 16-04-2024 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms prior precedent (e.g., Baldev Chand Bansal, Ashok Madan) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure, Negotiable Instruments Act, IPC Section 174-A |
| Questions of Law | Whether FIR/proceedings under Section 174-A IPC can be quashed if the main complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is withdrawn on settlement |
| Ratio Decidendi |
When the main complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is withdrawn following a settlement between parties, the very basis for proceedings under Section 174-A IPC ceases to exist; continuation of those proceedings constitutes an abuse of process. The court followed previous coordinate bench decisions affirming this principle. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Principle that continuation of Section 174-A proceedings after settlement of the original complaint is an abuse of process; cited multiple judgments supporting quashing in similar factual scenarios. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender in proceedings under Section 138 NI Act after the dishonour of cheques. Following a compromise, the complainant withdrew the complaint and the petitioner was discharged. The State opposed quashing, but the court found the basis for the FIR under Section 174-A IPC no longer existed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that quashing of FIRs under Section 174-A IPC is justified when the main Section 138 NI Act complaint is withdrawn due to settlement.
- The continuance of such proceedings after settlement is classified as abuse of process by the court.
- Lawyers may rely on this judgment to seek quashing of Section 174-A IPC FIRs where the original complaint has been resolved by compromise.
- The judgment cements earlier precedents into binding law within Punjab & Haryana High Court jurisdiction for cheque dishonour-related criminal quashment petitions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The FIR under Section 174-A IPC stemmed directly from an order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender for failing to appear in summoning proceedings under Section 138 NI Act.
- The complaint under Section 138 NI Act, which was the foundation for the declaration and subsequent FIR, was withdrawn by the complainant after an amicable settlement and the petitioner had been discharged.
- The court reviewed prior coordinate bench decisions (notably, Baldev Chand Bansal, Ashok Madan, Anil Kumar, Varinder Kumar), all of which held that once the primary complaint is resolved/withdrawn, Section 174-A IPC proceedings should not continue as it amounts to an abuse of process.
- The court specifically cited the reasoning that prosecution under Section 174-A IPC post-settlement is unjustified, as the basis for such prosecution—non-appearance in the main case—no longer survives.
- The petition for quashing was allowed subject to deposit of costs, and all proceedings arising from the FIR were quashed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioner contended that he was wrongly declared a proclaimed person.
- Upon learning of this, he compromised the matter with the complainant.
- The complainant withdrew the Section 138 NI Act complaint against him, leading to his discharge; hence, the FIR under Section 174-A IPC should also be quashed.
Respondent (State)
- The State opposed the petition, submitting that the FIR under Section 174-A IPC had been validly registered.
Factual Background
The petitioner issued two cheques to the complainant in discharge of legal liability; both were dishonoured. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed, and the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender for non-appearance. After a compromise, the complainant withdrew the complaint and the petitioner was discharged. Despite this, an FIR under Section 174-A IPC continued, leading the petitioner to seek quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
Statutory Analysis
- The court examined Section 174-A of the IPC, which penalises non-attendance in obedience to a proclamation issued by a court.
- The court also considered Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 regarding dishonour of cheques.
- The judgment did not undertake an expansive interpretation but relied on precedential readings that where the main criminal complaint is resolved, prosecution for subsequent non-appearance under Section 174-A is rendered unsustainable.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines are set out in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows and affirms a consistent line of precedent within the Punjab & Haryana High Court.