Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Section 174-A IPC Proceedings Arising from Cheque Bounce Cases After Full Settlement; Holds Continuation an Abuse of Process Despite Independent Nature of Offence
Case Name: Roop Singh v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 16 December 2025
Citation: CRM-M-10310-2024 and connected cases
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed three connected petitions and quashed proclamation orders and FIRs registered under Section 174-A IPC arising out of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court held that where the substantive cheque-bounce disputes have been amicably settled, the entire liability discharged, and the complaints withdrawn, continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would amount to an abuse of the process of law. While acknowledging that Section 174-A creates an independent offence, the Court held that in such circumstances, inherent jurisdiction can be exercised to prevent misuse of criminal process.
Summary: The petitions challenged proclamation orders passed in cheque-dishonour complaints and the consequent FIRs registered under Section 174-A IPC after the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person due to non-appearance. The petitioner contended that the disputes underlying the complaints had been fully settled, the cheque amounts along with compensation paid, and the complainants had withdrawn the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after recording satisfaction before the trial court.
The State opposed the petitions on the ground that the offence under Section 174-A IPC is independent and stands completed upon failure to appear after proclamation, irrespective of subsequent settlement of the main dispute. It was argued that compromise in the underlying complaint does not automatically obliterate the penal consequences of non-appearance.
The High Court examined the settled line of precedents of the Court, including Baldev Chand Bansal, Ashok Madan, Microqual Techno Limited, and Jitender Singh, which consistently hold that where FIRs under Section 174-A IPC arise solely from proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the main dispute stands resolved, continuation of such FIRs would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of process.
The Court also took note of the Supreme Court’s clarification in Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana that Section 174-A IPC is a distinct offence, but observed that even such independent offences can be quashed in appropriate cases to secure the ends of justice, particularly where the principal proceedings have terminated in favour of the accused due to settlement and no societal interest is implicated.
Balancing the legal position with equities, the Court held that the peculiar facts justified exercise of inherent jurisdiction, subject to imposition of costs, to discourage casual non-appearance and abuse of judicial process.
Decision: All three petitions were allowed. The proclamation orders and FIRs registered under Section 174-A IPC, along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed qua the petitioner. The relief was made subject to payment of costs of ₹15,000 in each petition to the Red Cross Old Age Home, Panchkula, within the stipulated period.