Satpal Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

CRM-M-32673-2026.

Date of Decision: 01.07.2026.

Satpal Singh ....Petitioner.

VERSUS

State of Punjab and another ....Respondent.

**** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH ---

Present:

Mr. Manjot Singh Tiwana, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1.

Petitioner-Satpal Singh, aged 51 years, has filed present petition under section 528 of BNSS for quashing of FIR No.146 dated 12.11.2024 under Section 209 of BNS (Section 174-A of IPC), registered at Police Station City-1, Mansa, District Mansa (Annexure P-1), as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a criminal Complaint No.NACT/327/2022 titled 'Tarsem Chand vs. Satpal Singh', under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein the petitioner was proceeded as accused. During pendency of the said complaint, due to absence of the petitioner, he was declared as 'proclaimed person', vide order dated 05.11.2024 and resultantly, the FIR in question was also registered on 12.11.2024. Counsel submits that during pendency of the said

complaint, compromise was effected and after recording of the statements of the concerned parties, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 21.02.2026 (Annexure P-8).

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that declaration of the petitioner as proclaimed offender, and thereafter, registration of FIR No.146 dated 12.11.2024 under Section 209 of BNS (Section 174-A of IPC), would not be considered material proceeding, once main offence from which such proceedings emerged, has already been compromised between the private parties. In support of the contention, learned counsel relies upon judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in CRM-M-476572022, titled as, "Randhir Singh Tyagi vs. State of Haryana and another", decided on 17.10.2022.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1-State. Copy of the paper book has already been supplied to him. Mr. A.S. Sra, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant.

6.

In view of the settled proposition of law, wherein, several other similar matters have already been decided by this Court, learned State counsel has no serious and authentic submissions before this Court to oppose the prayer made in present petition.

7.

Heard.

8.

Under these circumstances, once the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act stands withdrawn on the basis of compromise, continuation of the instant FIR under Section 209 of BNS

(Section 174-A of IPC), is nothing but an abuse of process of law. In this regard reliance can be placed upon judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Microqual Techno Limited and others v. State of Haryana and another-2015(32) RCR (Criminal) 790, which has also been followed in CRM-M-47891-2021, titled as, "Jitender Singh v. State of Haryana and another", decided on 16.11.2021, and the order dated 05.09.2022, passed by this Court in CRM-M-34291-2022, titled as, "Pankaj Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and another".

9.

Accordingly, instant petition is allowed. Order dated 05.11.2024 (Annexure P-3) declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including FIR No.146 dated 12.11.2024 under Section 209 of BNS (Section 174-A of IPC), registered at Police Station City-1, Mansa, District Mansa (Annexure P-1), stand quashed qua the petitioner.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 01.07.2026 jitender Whether speaking/ reasoned :

Yes/ No Whether Reportable :

Yes/ No