Quashing of 174-A IPC FIR After NI Act Settlement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Inherent Powers to Prevent Abuse of Process
Case Name: Som Nath v. State of Haryana and Another
Date of Judgment: April 22, 2026
Citation: CRM-M-21931-2026
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The High Court held that although an offence under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 BNS) is a standalone offence, proceedings arising therefrom can be quashed in exercise of inherent powers where the underlying dispute, particularly a Section 138 NI Act complaint, has been amicably settled and continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law.
Summary: The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 174 dated 18.04.2025 registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal, along with proclamation proceedings initiated under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. The FIR stemmed from the petitioner being declared a proclaimed person in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 due to non-appearance.
Subsequently, the parties entered into a settlement wherein the petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant. The matter was disposed of by the Lok Adalat, and the petitioner fulfilled the entire payment obligation. A formal compromise deed dated 30.03.2026 was executed between the parties.
The petitioner argued that since the main complaint had been settled and disposed of, continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would serve no useful purpose. The State did not dispute the compromise, and the complainant also confirmed the settlement.
The Court examined precedents including coordinate bench decisions and the Supreme Court ruling in Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana (2025), which clarified that Section 174-A IPC is a standalone offence but also recognized that subsequent developments like settlement of the main case can justify closure of proceedings.
Decision: The Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR as well as all consequential proceedings, including the proclamation order. It reasoned that although Section 174-A IPC constitutes an independent offence, the High Court must not apply the law mechanically without considering the factual context and the ends of justice. Where the original proceedings arise from a private dispute under Section 138 NI Act and have been amicably resolved, continuing prosecution under Section 174-A would be unjust and counterproductive.
The Court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS) are meant to prevent abuse of process and secure justice. It observed that prolonging litigation in such circumstances would burden the judicial system and defeat the legislative intent behind compoundable offences like Section 138 NI Act. Accordingly, the FIR and all related proceedings were quashed.