Jitender Kumar v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34192-2025 Date of decision: July 9th, 2025 Jitender Kumar .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Vipin Kumar and Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocates for the petitioner.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing of FIR No.1016 dated 18.09.2023 under Section 174-A of the IPC registered at Police Station HTM, Hisar and order dated 01.09.2023 vide which the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has drawn the attention of this Court to order dated 27.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) wherein it stands reflected that in view of a statement made by the complainant, the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI Act') was dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of a compromise. A prayer, therefore, has been made that in the aforementioned facts and circumstances, no purpose would be served by prosecuting the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Sher Singh vs. State of Haryana (CRMM-11846-2023) decided on 09.03.2023 wherein in identical facts and PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.07.09 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh circumstances, the FIR registered under Section 174-A of the IPC

CRM-M-34192-2025 -2against the petitioner was quashed.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Rahul Mohan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

5.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by the counsel opposite and contended that it was evident that the petitioner had intentionally not appeared during the proceedings before the Court below and hence, the prayer of the petitioner deserved to be declined. 6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.

7.

The petitioner was declared a proclaimed person in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act. Admittedly, the said complaint was withdrawn after the parties arrived at a compromise. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings for offence under Section 174-A of the IPC would serve no useful purpose. 8.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR registered under Section 174-A of the IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

July 9th, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.07.09 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh