The single judge bench of Justice Pankaj Jain of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Arpit Gupta, Partner M/s. Tulip Yarn Vs State of Haryana and another held that since the main petition filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties, therefore, continuation of proceedings under Section 174A of IPC shall be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the petition was filed under section 482 CRPC seeking quashing of the FIR registered for the offenses punishable under Section 174-A IPC.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that after the principal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I. Act') stood compromised, as a natural corollary thereof the present proceedings under Section 174-A IPC cannot be allowed to continue as the same were initiated on the basis of the petitioner not appearing before the Trial Court in the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act only. It was further submitted that the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act having been withdrawn pursuant to the settlement and the petitioner is no more interested in pursuing the present proceedings and thus not interested in appearing before this Court.
ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT
“whether proceedings under Section 174-A IPC can be allowed to continue after the principal complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act already stands settled and withdrawn.”
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble high court relied upon the judgment titled Ashok Madaan vs. State of Haryana and another in which it was held that
“No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the offence under Section 174-A I.P.C. is independent of the main case, therefore, merely because the main case has been dismissed for want of prosecution, the present petition cannot be allowed, however, keeping in view the fact that the present FIR was registered only on account of absence from the proceedings in the main case which had been subsequently regularised by the court while granting bail to the petitioner, the default stood condoned. In such circumstances, continuation of proceedings under Section 174A I.P.C. shall be abuse of the process of court.”
The high court in view of this quashed the consequential FIR registered for the offence punishable under Section 174-A IPC,
CASE NAME- Arpit Gupta, Partner M/s. Tulip Yarn Vs State of Haryana and another
CITATION- CRM-M-29483-2021
CORUM- Justice Pankaj Jain
DATE- 14.11.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :