The Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirmed that once the main FIR has been quashed on the basis of compromise, all consequential proceedings—including proclamation under Section 82 CrPC—are rendered infructuous and should be disposed. This judgment confirms the effect of FIR quashing on ancillary criminal process, and may be cited as binding authority before subordinate courts in Haryana and Punjab.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/34385/2025 of PANKAJ Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC010988712025 |
| Date of Registration | 02-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | Mrs. Justice Amarjot Bhatti |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedural Law |
| Questions of Law | Does quashing the primary FIR on the basis of compromise automatically render pending Section 82 CrPC proceedings infructuous? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that once the FIR is quashed based on settlement between the parties, all consequential proceedings, including those under Section 82 CrPC (proclamation against the accused for non-appearance), become infructuous. The petition seeking quashing of such proceedings is therefore also to be disposed as infructuous. The appearance of the accused in trial court and the order quashing the FIR underscore that further prosecution steps are no longer sustainable. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner sought quashing of order initiating proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC after non-appearance before trial court. In the interim, parties compromised and FIR was quashed in a separate petition. Petitioner appeared before trial court and confirmed compromise. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the territorial jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that upon quashing of the principal FIR due to compromise, ancillary proceedings such as those under Section 82 CrPC are rendered infructuous.
- Lawyers may cite this order to efficiently dispose of consequential criminal process where the underlying FIR has been quashed.
- The case confirms procedural convenience: there is no necessity to pursue or contest proceedings under Section 82 CrPC after FIR quashing on compromise grounds.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner faced Section 82 CrPC proclamation proceedings due to non-appearance before the trial court in relation to FIR No. 85 of 2019.
- During pendency of quashing petition for these proclamation proceedings, a compromise was reached between the parties, and a separate petition achieved quashing of the FIR itself.
- The petitioner regularised appearance before the trial court, and the compromise was accepted.
- The High Court observed that since the main FIR stands quashed, all consequential proceedings (including those under Section 82 CrPC) are rendered without basis and must be disposed of as infructuous.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Non-appearance before the trial court led to proceedings under Section 82 CrPC.
- Compromise has been reached with the complainant, and FIR quashed in separate proceedings.
- Petitioner has now appeared before the trial court; further prosecution under Section 82 CrPC is unnecessary.
Factual Background
The petitioner was subject to Section 82 CrPC proclamation proceedings initiated by the trial court due to his non-appearance in FIR No. 85/2019 (Sections 34, 406, 498-A, 506 IPC). While the Section 82 CrPC quashing petition was pending before the High Court, the parties entered into a compromise, and the FIR was quashed in a separate High Court proceeding. The petitioner then appeared before the trial court, leading to the instant petition being rendered infructuous and disposed of accordingly.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment addresses the implication of Section 82 CrPC (proclamation for person absconding). The High Court clarified that when the main FIR upon which such proceedings are based is quashed, proceedings initiated under Section 82 CrPC lose their underlying foundation and therefore must be treated as infructuous.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms the legal position regarding the effect of FIR quashing on consequential proceedings.