Balwinder Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Another
CRM-M-56282-2025
!"#!"#$ BALWINDER KUMAR
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER % &'% " () (" * +++++
!" #$% & '
'( ))))) ) (" *,"- ./0 * & + ,(- . & '! + (/(0 1+! +! /2/3(/(,4& # 5+! 6+ + 7 4& 4 4 !' 9(,*9(/*: ! + 4 ! ' '8; '*2/2 (/*3 /,*((/*3
+ *0- '!4 < + *--* ! 7 +41+ ! ! 4 /*/:(/(,=>+ 2? ( ; 1+7+4&% @ 8+ !7 (*/-(/*A
+
( 4 7+ (-////9 + + 1+ < 4& & +
+ ! 4& ! !& 44+ 1+ 7<8<8< . . 7 # 6+ + 4 ! 1+' //0A0,(,/:(/*3 + ₹0////9 1+'//0A00 (,/:(/*3 + ₹*,////9 1+'//0A02(,/:(/*3
+ ₹*/////9 + ;
1+'//0A00(,/:(/*3 +!+@4'. 6! =4?B7 1+ 7 + + /:*/(/*3 7 7 D < + + & + 4! + + *0- '!4< + *--*7 0 ; !+ 8+
+ *0- '!4< + *--* @+! /(/3(/*: '8;'*2/2 (/*3 7 + ! 4 @+! 8+
2 < 7 4 4 74 4& < + +4 ! 7
+ 77+& +
0 , + + /:*/(/(, (,///9 44& 4 5+ ! * 8 6+ + '0-*(**(/(,; > + < ;+4 +
++9 << '+4 9 =? <<< "
+
9 &
E! < < &
=
+ E
? + & &1+!4 %! 8+ 7 %9 4
8+ + B
" &
+4
9 &+ ! ! 9 4 !@+
<
8+ 7 !+
+ & 7+ &
++ + B
<< &
2 A 8+ +4 7! ! + !4 + & + 4 8+ >;4 7 4 7 & 7 4+ 7
&
+ & 81+& 4 +! ! 4 < + +4 + 47 4 4& +& + &+ 7 7+ ! &
4 !'8;'*2/2(/*374 ! (,*9(/*: 1+ !! 4
47 &41+% +4 7 ! & & +4 + ! !4>!+ + ! 7+ + + + 7++4+ 7 7.
' appears on behalf of respondent No.
2 and reiterate the settlement and their concurrence to the quashing of the FIR alongwith all the other consequential proceedings including the impugned order herein declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person. 8.
Counsel appearing for the state contends that the offence contemplated under Section 174-A of the IPC constitutes an independent and substantive penal provision, the commission of which attains completion upon
, the failure of an individual to appear before the Court, after being duly proclaimed as per Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. It is contended that the subsequent compromise between the parties, the settlement of the underlying dispute or even the eventual withdrawal or extinguishment of the proclamation proceedings does not expunge the act constituting the offence under Section 174-A, as the liability for such non-appearance is distinct from the merits of the original complaint.
9.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents appended with the present petition. 10.
The Supreme Court in the case of Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1 has clarified that while Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is intended to secure the presence of an accused by declaring him an absconder for evading legal process, Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code creates a distinct substantive offence for failure to appear in compliance with such a proclamation. The offence under Section 174A is complete the moment the accused fails to appear at the specified time and place and may continue even if the proclamation under Section 82 is subsequently withdrawn. However, if the accused is ultimately acquitted of the principal offence for which the proclamation was issued, the proceedings under Section 174A would not subsist.
** < 7 +44&5+ ! F 86+ + ! ! 74& % 4 + 8+ +4@ 7; +! /2/3(/(, 4 ! ' 9(,*9(/*:7 !+ 4 !''8;
A '*2/2 (/*3/,*((/*3 1+ ! ! . 3.45 67 3 7 /*/:(/(,=>+ 2? 7 -) (" *0 !,#$
" !9 G9' " 4 G9'