Setting Aside Of Main Case Only A Relevant Factor When Considering Quashing Plea For Offence U/S 174A IPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that an FIR under Section 174-A IPC (non-appearance of a person in response to a court summons or warrant of arrest) does not get quashed merely because the main case is quashed or the parties have entered into compromise, however the same will be a relevant factor to consider in the quashing plea. Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The statutory provision of Section 174-A of IPC, when perused in the light of ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Daljit Singh's case, unequivocally shows that an FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC does not proprio vigore become liable to be quashed, in case the rival parties have entered into a compromise and such criminal complaint/FIR has been compromised and quashed/withdrawn accordingly. However, at the same time, the factum of the criminal complaint/FIR (in furtherance of proceedings whereof) having been compromised/settled, is indubitably, a relevant factor to be considered while dealing with a plea for quashing of an FIR (as also proceedings emanating therefrom) under Section 174-A of IPC."In the present case, the FIR under 174-A IPC was lodged against the petitioner because he was declared as a proclaimed offender in a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.However, the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act was withdrawn as the rival parties had entered into a settlement.Hence, counsel for the petitioner argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuation of the proceedings qua the impugned FIR.After examining the submissions, the Court considered the question whether the impugned FIR (as also proceedings arising therefrom) under Section 174-A of the IPC deserves to be quashed in the factual matrix of the present case.Reliance was placed upon Daljit Singh vs. State of Haryana and Another [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 12] to underscore while a proclamation issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. cannot be enforced if the underlying case is quashed, the accused may still be penalized under Section 174A IPC for failing to appear in response to the proclamation, as it constitutes an independent offence arising from the initial proclamation.In the above case, the Apex Court quashed the impugned FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC since, inter alia, the original offence in the form of criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 in the said case had been settled and withdrawn by the rival parties.Justice Goel opined that while exercising its innate plenary powers under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023/428 of Cr.P.C., 1973, to ratiocinate that it should not apply the law in an austere, academic and exacting technical manner, without considering its practical implications."The Law is not merely a set of programmed, nailed-to-the-ground rules, to be applied without context. It must be enforced, while bearing in mind, that its purpose is to ensure substantive justice between the parties," the Court added.The Court highlighted that, the inherent powers of a High Court are powers which are incidental replete powers, which if did not so exist, the Court would be obliged to sit still and helplessly see the process of law and Courts being abused for the purposes of injustice. In other words; such powers is intrinsic to a High Court, it is its very life-blood, its very essence, its immanent attribute.In the present case, the judge noted that the original offence being an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the original offence alleged to have been committed in the year 2021, the subject matter of the original offence having been settled amicably between the parties and the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act has already been withdrawn.Mr. Mehtab Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.Title: Soni Kumar v. State of PunjabCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 17Click here to read/download the order

Setting Aside Of Main Case Only A Relevant Factor When Considering Quashing Plea For Offence U/S 174A IPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

Setting Aside Of Main Case Only A Relevant Factor When Considering Quashing Plea For Offence U/S 174A IPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers