The quashing of a case under Section 174A IPC depends on various factors, as highlighted in following

judgments. Courts have held that Section 174A is an independent, substantive offence that continues even if the
proclamation under Section 82 CrPC is no longer in effect. However, in some cases if the accused is acquitted in
the main case, Courts have quashed the proceedings under 174A. Additionally, the High Court, under its inherent
powers (Section 482 CrPC), may quash an FIR under Section 174A if the original offence has been amicably
settled, ensuring justice and preventing unnecessary litigation.

Case Title Relevant Paragraph

Mukesh Bhatia v. State (NCT of 10. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 Supreme Court
Delhi) relying upon its earlier decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab held:
(2022 SCC OnLine Del 1023)
“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the
Note: In this case the Hon’ble following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving
SC discussed the adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its
circumstances in which 174A power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and
IPC case can be quashed or quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with
not direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished

from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under
Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the
High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in
those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the
matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised
sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis
petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in
such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either
of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which

involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have
a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been
committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or
the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity
are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the
victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial
transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes
should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes
among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to

whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation
of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice
and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal
cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous
and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime
against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High
Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of
Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It
would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of
Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected
sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge
under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High
Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is
inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used,
etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can
generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis,
the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of
conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former
case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal
proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High
Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete
settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed
by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in
harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the
Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where
the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of
offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be
liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal
proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the
investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed.
Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to
start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show
benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie
assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other
hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the
conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally
the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482
of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to
decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether
the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those
cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the
matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise
between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in
 acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court.
Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already
recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing
a convict found guilty of such a crime.”

11. Considering the nature of allegations in FIR for offences punishable

under Sections 420/468/471/120B/34 IPC being personal in nature, I deem
it fit to quash the FIR No. 566/2017 qua Sections 420/468/471/120B/34
IPC, however since Section 174A IPC is a standalone provision which has
no bearing to the other alleged offences and is not an offence of personal
nature inter-se the parties i.e. the petitioners and respondent no. 2 and
respondent no. 3, thus, this Court refrains from quashing the proceedings
pursuant to the above-noted FIR qua Section 174A IPC.

12. Consequently the proceedings before the learned Trial Court would
now go on for offence punishable under Section 174A IPC and not qua
offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471/120B/34 IPC to which
extent the proceedings pursuant to the FIR are hereby quashed.

Daljit Singh vs. State of Haryana Now, let us consider the second question arising in this appeal, in reference
and Ors. (02.01.2025 - SC) to this provision is, whether the subsistence of the proclamation Under
Section 82 Code of Criminal Procedure is necessary for the authorities to
Note: The court held proceed against the Accused person Under Section 174A Indian Penal
that Section 174A IPC is Code. In other words, whether Section 174A Indian Penal Code can stand
an independent, substantive independent of the proclamation Under Section 82 Code of Criminal
offence that can continue even if Procedure or not?
the proclamation under
Section 82 CrPC is no longer in 7.1 The purpose of Section 82 Code of Criminal Procedure, as can be
effect. However, if the accused understood from a bare reading of the statutory text is to ensure that a
is acquitted in the main case, person who is called to appear before a Court, does so. This Section
proceedings under Section 174A appears as part of Chapter VI which is titled 'Process to Compel
IPC can be quashed, as seen in Appearance'. Section 83 to 90 provide for the additional method of
this case where the appellant's attachment of property to the end of securing appearance. Necessarily then
acquittal led to the quashing of some or the other proceeding has to be ongoing for which the presence of
all related proceedings. such person is necessary. The words of the Section dictate that it can be
only issued in respect of a person against whom a warrant has been issued.
Neither a warrant nor proclamation subsequent can be conjured up out of
thin air.

7.2 Section 174A Indian Penal Code, inserted by the 2005 Amendment to
the Indian Penal Code inserts a substantive offence, prescribing punishment
of three years or fine or both when such proclamation is issued Under
Section 82(1) Code of Criminal Procedure and, seven years and fine if the
said proclamation is Under Sub-section (4) thereof. The object and purpose
of this Section is to ensure penal consequences for defiance of a Court
order requiring a person's presence.

7.3 Now, what happens if the status Under Section 82 Code of Criminal
Procedure is nullified i.e., the person subjected to such proclamation, by
virtue of subsequent developments is no longer required to be presented
before a Court of law. Then, can the prosecution still proceed against such a
person for having not appeared before a Court during the time that the
process was in effect. The answer is in the affirmative. We say so for the
following reasons:

(i) The language of Section 174A, Indian Penal Code says "whoever fails to
appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by
proclamation...". This implies that the very instance at which a person is
directed to appear, and he does not do so, this Section comes into play;

(ii) What further flows from the language employed is that the instance of
non-appearance becomes an infraction of the Section, and therefore,
prosecution therefor would be independent of Section 82, Code of Criminal
Procedure being in effect;

(iii) So, while proceedings Under Section 174A Indian Penal Code cannot
be initiated independent of Section 82, Code of Criminal Procedure, i.e.,
can only be started post the issuance of proclamation, they can continue if
the said proclamation is no longer in effect.

(iv) We find that the Delhi High Court has taken this view, i.e., that Section
174A, Indian Penal Code is a stand-alone offence in Mukesh Bhatia v. State
(NCT of Delhi) MANU/DE/1166/2022 : 2022:DHC:1301; Divya Verma v.
State MANU/DE/2839/2023; Sameena and Anr. v. State GNCT of Delhi
and Anr.8 For the reasons afore-stated, we agree with the findings made in
these judgments/orders. At the same time, it stands clarified that we have
not commented on the merits of the cases.

(v) Granted that the offence prescribed in Section 174A Indian Penal Code
is indeed stand-alone, given that it arises out of an original offence in
connection with which proceedings Under Section 82 Code of Criminal
Procedure is initiated and in the said offence the Accused stands,
subsequently, acquitted, it would be permissible in law for the Court seized
of the trial under such offence, to take note of such a development and treat
the same as a ground to draw the proceedings to a close, should such a
prayer be made and the circumstances of the case so warrant.

8. In conclusion, we hold that Section 174A Indian Penal Code is an

independent, substantive offence, that can continue even if the
proclamation Under Section 82, Code of Criminal Procedure is
extinguished. It is a stand-alone offence. That being the position of law, let
us now turn to the present facts. As we have already noted supra, the
Appellant stands acquitted of the main offence.

10. None has disputed the above or brought to the attention of this Court
such a fact that the said arrangement has not been complied with.

11. The Appellant has been acquitted which means that there is no case for
which his presence is required to be secured. Resultantly, the appeal is
allowed. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, i.e. that the
 original offence pertains to the year 2010; the money subject matter of
dispute stands paid, the judgment of the High Court with the particulars as
mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment, stands quashed and set aside.
All criminal proceedings, inclusive of the FIR Under Section 174A Indian
Penal Code, shall stand closed. The Appellant's status, as a 'proclaimed
person' stands quashed.

Soni Kumar v. State of Punjab 8. It is for the High Court, while exercising its innate plenary powers under
(10.01.2025) 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.
Note: The High Court,
exercising its inherent powers The Law aw is not merely a set of programmed, nailed-to-the-ground rules,
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can rules to be applied without context. It must be enforced, while bearing in
quash an FIR under Section mind, that its purpose is to ensure substantive justice between the parties.
174A IPC if the original offence The statutory provision of Section 174-A A of IPC, when perused in the
(e.g., under Section 138 NI Act) light of ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
has been amicably settled, as Daljit Singh's case (supra), unequivocally shows that FIR under Section
continuing prosecution would be 174-A of the IPC does not proprio vigore become liable to be quashed, in
unjust and contrary to the spirit case the rival parties have entered into a compromise and such criminal
of justice. 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) 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.

This fact assumes greater significance considering that the initial

proceedings pertain exclusively to a private criminal complaint
under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881, which the legislature has expressly
classified as a compoundable offence. Such litigation, especially in the
backdrop of original offence having been compromised will have an
adverse impact on the overburdened Court-dockets. Allowing such
prosecution, when initial complaint has been settled/withdrawn would
undermine the legislative intent and distort the remedial nature of Section
138 of NI Act of 1881. It would tantamount to contravening the principles
of fairness, proportionality, and justice in criminal proceedings. A literal
interpretation may sometimes lead to unjust outcomes that also contradict
the law's underline underlined purpose.

Therefore, the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction must balance the
letter of Law aw with its spirit, ensuring fair and equitable results. This
approach underscores Law's role as an apparatus for fostering societal
harmony and addressing the real-world world complexities, efficaciously as
also effectively, rather than mere literal/technical compliance.

9. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, 2023/Section

482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is primarily aimed at preventing abuse of judicial process
and securing the ends of justice. Thus, when the dispute is essentially
personal in nature and a genuine compromise has been reached, the High
Court may intervene to quash the criminal proceedings, recognizing the
continuation thereof would be non-productive and unjust in the given
circumstances. 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 power(s) is
intrinsic to a High Court, it is its very life life-blood, blood, its very
essence, its immanent attribute. Without such power(s), a High Court would
have form but lack the substance. These powers of a High Court hence
deserve to be construed with the widest possible amplitude. These inherent
powers are in consonance with the nature of a High Court which ought to
be, and has in fact been, invested with power(s) to maintain its authority to
prevent the process of law/Courts being obstructed or abused.

10. Keeping in view the entirety of the attending facts and circumstances of
the case in hand especially the original offence being an offence
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, 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 Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 having been withdrawn on the basis of such
settlement/compromise; this Court deems it appropriate that the impugned
FIR as also all proceedings emanating therefrom deserve to be quashed.
In these cases the complaint was quashed on the grounds of procedural defects.

Case Relevant Paragraph

Rajinder Ghazta vs.  The proclamation under Section 82 CrPC was not issued at the correct
State of H.P. and Ors. address.
(12.01.2024 -  The police have no jurisdiction to register an FIR under Section 174A IPC
HPHC) : without a complaint from the court as per Section 195(1)(a) CrPC.
MANU/HP/0177/2024 .

Deepak Rathod v. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has appeared through VC and submits that the
State, 2023 SCC matter has been amicably settled and both the parties have resolved all their differences
OnLine Del 4869 amicably, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to quash FIR No. 0588/2022
under Section 174A IPC registered at PS Model Town, Delhi, and all the proceedings
emanating therefrom.
6. Learned APP for the State has opposed the quashing on the ground that Section 174
of IPC deals with Non-attendance in obedience to an order from a public servant.
7. I consider that there would be no purpose of continuing with the proceedings. Taking
into account the totality of facts and circumstances the present FIR No. 0588/2022
under Section 174A IPC registered at PS Model Town, Delhi, and all the other
proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
Baljeet Kaur v. State 45. In addition, the learned trial court's reliance on the notion that the petitioner is
(NCT of Delhi), 2024 avoiding service, despite the service report stating that the service is not completed as
SCC OnLine Del 7742 the petitioner has left the premises, demonstrates a failure to apply the settled principles
of law. Thus, the impugned orders passed by the learned trial court and the direction to
the police concerned to register FIR against the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC
contravenes established legal principles which warrant a thorough examination of the
facts before declaring someone as an absconder.