The High Court of Punjab and Haryana set aside an FIR registered under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sahnita after the complainant withdrew the underlying Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint, emphasizing that continuation of such proceedings would be an abuse of process.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Deepak Kumar, was served with summons in a complaint filed by Jabbar Ali under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial court, unable to secure the petitioner's appearance, declared him a proclaimed person under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and subsequently an FIR (No.1090) was lodged against him under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sahnita, 2023 at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat.
Key Facts
- 15 December 2022: FIR No.1090 registered under Section 209 BNS.
- 25 November 2022: Trial Court order declaring petitioner a proclaimed person under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
- 21 January 2023: Date of proclamation (VOD) as recorded in the magistrate's order.
- 01 March 2023: Complainant withdrew the Section 138 complaint, providing a written statement of settlement and receipt of the cheque amount.
- 01 March 2026: Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Samalkha dismissed the complaint as withdrawn.
- Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quash of the FIR and all consequential proceedings (date of filing not specified).
- 13 August 2026: High Court delivered the present judgment.
Procedural History
- 15 Dec 2022: FIR No.1090 registered under Section 209 BNS.
- 25 Nov 2022: Proclamation order under Section 82 Cr.P.C.; petitioner declared proclaimed.
- 21 Jan 2023: Proclamation date noted in later magistrate order.
- 01 Mar 2023: Complaint under Section 138 NI Act withdrawn by complainant (Annexure P.4).
- 01 Mar 2026: Judicial Magistrate order dismissing the withdrawn complaint.
- Petition under Section 528 BNS filed (date not specified).
- 13 Aug 2026: High Court judgment quashing FIR and related proceedings.
Relief Sought
The petitioner prayed for quashing of FIR No.1090 dated 15.12.2022, registered under Section 209 BNS, and for dismissal of all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
The Legal Issue
Whether an FIR registered under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sahnita, 2023 and the accompanying proclamation order should stand when the underlying complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been withdrawn and the parties have settled the dispute.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The withdrawal of the Section 138 complaint on 01.03.2023 eliminated any pending liability, rendering the FIR purposeless.
- The proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was effected without due compliance, as the petitioner could not appear due to settlement negotiations.
- Citing precedents such as Baldev Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana (29.01.2019) and Vikas Sharma v. Gurpreet Singh Kohli (2017), the petitioner argued that continuation of FIR after settlement constitutes an abuse of process.
For the Respondent
- The State contended that the FIR under Section 209 BNS is an independent criminal proceeding and should not be affected by the civil settlement of the underlying cheque dispute.
- It argued that the proclamation was validly issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner’s non-appearance justified the FIR.
The Court's Analysis
The Court first noted that the FIR was lodged solely because the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person for non-appearance in the Section 138 proceeding. It observed that the withdrawal of the complaint, coupled with the complainant’s written acknowledgment of receipt of the cheque, extinguished the substantive dispute.
"Once the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act stands withdrawn, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the FIR registered under Section 209 of the BNS and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom."
The Court relied heavily on its own coordinate bench decisions. In Baldev Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana (29.01.2019) the bench held that continuation of an FIR after settlement of the underlying complaint is an abuse of process. Similar reasoning was affirmed in Vikas Sharma v. Gurpreet Singh Kohli (2017), Narender v. State of Haryana (08.02.2023), and Anil Dhiman v. State of Punjab (01.06.2023). These precedents establish that the existence of a settled civil dispute negates the basis for a criminal proceeding that was initiated merely to coerce compliance.
The Court further examined the procedural defect in the proclamation. It found that the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued without giving the petitioner a fair opportunity to appear, as the parties were engaged in settlement negotiations. This procedural lapse reinforced the view that the FIR was not grounded in any substantive offence.
Consequently, the Court concluded that maintaining the FIR would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would contravene the principle of justice that no person should be subjected to unnecessary criminal prosecution when the civil liability has been resolved.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. FIR No.1090 dated 15 December 2022, registered under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sahnita, 2023, was quashed. All consequential proceedings arising therefrom were disposed of, and any pending applications were also dismissed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Withdrawal of Underlying Civil Complaint Ends Criminal Follow-up
- When a complaint under Section 138 NI Act is withdrawn and the parties reach a settlement, any FIR filed solely on the basis of non-appearance becomes untenable.
- Lawyers should promptly move to quash such FIRs, citing the abuse of process doctrine and the relevant coordinate-bench precedents.
Proclamation Must Follow Statutory Procedure
- Courts must ensure that a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued only after the accused is given a genuine opportunity to appear.
- Failure to comply with procedural safeguards can render the proclamation, and any FIR arising from it, invalid.
Abuse of Process as a Defence
-
Practitioners can invoke the principle that continuation of criminal proceedings without a substantive basis is an abuse of process.
-
Citing Baldev Chand Bansal and subsequent judgments strengthens the argument for quashing FIRs linked to settled civil disputes.
-
File a petition under Section 528 BNS promptly after withdrawal of the underlying complaint.
-
Attach the withdrawal order and settlement proof as annexures.
-
Emphasize lack of public interest and the futility of further prosecution.
