Compromise in cheque bounce complaint led the HC to quash proclamation proceedings and the related FIR as consequential and unnecessary.

Where a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint is withdrawn on compromise and the complainant raises no objection, the order declaring the accused proclaimed persons is treated as consequential to the non-appearance in that complaint. In that setting, proceedings under Section 174-A IPC serve no independent purpose and may be quashed as an abuse of process. The Punjab and Haryana HC set aside the proclamation order and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after withdrawal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the basis of compromise, the order declaring the petitioners as proclaimed persons and the FIR under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code could be quashed.

Analysis: The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had been withdrawn pursuant to a settlement between the parties, and the complainant-bank stated that it had no objection to quashing of the proceedings. In such circumstances, the order declaring the petitioners as proclaimed persons was only consequential to their non-appearance in the main complaint, and the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code would serve no independent purpose. The Court treated such continuation as an abuse of the process of Court.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioners. The order declaring them proclaimed persons was set aside and the FIR under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, along with consequential proceedings, was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the underlying complaint is withdrawn on compromise and the complainant has no objection, consequential proceedings for non-appearance under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code do not survive and may be quashed as an abuse of the process of Court.

---