Non-service and settlement justified quashing of proclaimed person proceedings and the linked FIR under Section 174-A IPC.

Non-service at the given address justified the petitioner's non-appearance before the trial court, and the compromise between the parties, including withdrawal of the Section 138 NI Act complaint, meant that continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of process. The petitioner had also obtained anticipatory bail after the impugned order. The High Court therefore set aside the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person and quashed the FIR under Section 174-A IPC, along with all consequential proceedings, qua the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person and the consequential FIR under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were liable to be quashed in view of non-service at the given address and the compromise between the parties.

Analysis: The petitioner's non-appearance before the trial court was found to be justified because he had not been served at the given address. The record also showed that, after the impugned order, the petitioner had obtained anticipatory bail. Further, the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had been withdrawn pursuant to settlement between the parties. In these circumstances, continuing the proceedings under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 would amount to abuse of process of law.

Conclusion: The impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person was set aside and the FIR under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed qua the petitioner.

---