CRM-M-50456-2018 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(266)
CRM-M-50456-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-12.01.2023
PREM CHAND
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Amit Prashar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Posal, Asstt. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Akshit Mehta, Advocate for
Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 30.08.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridabad and FIR No.834, dated 04.09.2018 (Annexure P-2) registered under Section 174-A of IPC at Police Station Ballabgarh City, District Faridabad whereby the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed person.
The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 namely, Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Kumar Malik had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act against the petitioner/accused for dishonouring of the cheque of Rs.1,10,000/-. As the petitioner/accused did not appear before the Trial Court to face trial, he was declared a proclaimed person as per the order dated 30.08.2018 (Annexure P-1) pursuant to which an FIR No.834, 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2023 23:36:12 ::: -2- CRM-M-50456-2018 (O&M) dated 04.09.2018 (Annexure P-2) came to be registered under Section 174- A of IPC at Police Station Ballabgarh City, District Faridabad against him. After the registration of the FIR, the concerned SHO put in appearance in the Court and submitted that the petitioner would be proceeded against as per law on his apprehension and the JMIC, Faridbad issued fresh non- bailable warrant against the surety. The copy of the order dated 27.09.2018 is annexed as Annexure P-3 to the petition.
On 17.10.2018, the petitioner/accused applied for anticipatory bail in the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act in which the counsel for respondent No.2 suffered a statement in lieu of cheque No.304955 dated 03.08.2016. The copy of the statement dated 17.10.2018 is annexed as Annexure P-4 to the petition.
Subsequently, a compromise was effected between the parties and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the order dated 20.10.2018 (Annexure P-6). In view of the dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of the compromise, the present petition for quashing of FIR No.834, dated 04.09.2018 (Annexure P-2) registered under Section 174-A of IPC at Police Station Ballabgarh City, District Faridabad has been filed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was never served in the said proceedings and he learnt about the said proceedings only after the police raided his house, after being declared as a proclaimed person. On learning about the same, the petitioner compromised the matter with the complainant/respondent Thereafter, on 20.10.2018 (Annexure P-6), the learned counsel for the complainant in the Trial Court got recorded his statement that as per his instructions, the complainant did 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2023 23:36:13 ::: -3- CRM-M-50456-2018 (O&M) not want to proceed further with the present complaint and wanted to withdraw the same. Based on the said statement, the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn on 20.10.2018 (Annexure P-6).
The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the FIR has been correctly registered.
The learned counsel for respondent No.2 does not dispute the fact that a compromise having been effected between the parties.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper-book.
From the above-said facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the present FIR was registered in view of the fact that the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person in the proceeding under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. The impugned complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 itself has been withdrawn.
A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-43813-2018 titled as "Baldev Chand Bansal vs. State of Haryana and another", decided on 29.01.2019 has held as under:-
"Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017 filed under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof as well as order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the trial Court vide which a direction was issued to register the aforesaid FIR.
xxx xxx xxx Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by this Court in " Vikas Sharma vs. 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2023 23:36:13 ::: -4- CRM-M-50456-2018 (O&M) Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another (supra), 2017, (3) L.A.R.584, Microqual Techno Limited and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2015 (32) RCR (Crl.) 790 and "Rajneesh Khanna Vs. State of Haryana and another" 2017(3) L.A.R. 555 wherein in an identical circumstance, this Court has held that since the main petition filed under Section 138 of the 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.
xxx xxx xxx In view of the same, I find merit in the present petition and accordingly, present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.10.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Panchkula as well as FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017 registered under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, are hereby quashed."
A perusal of the above judgment would show that in a similar case where the FIR had been registered under Section 174-A IPC in view of the order passed in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, while declaring the petitioner therein as proclaimed offender, a co-ordinate Bench after relying upon various judgments observed that once the main petition under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties, the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The said 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2023 23:36:13 ::: -5- CRM-M-50456-2018 (O&M) aspect was one of the main consideration for allowing the petition and setting aside the order declaring the petitioner therein as proclaimed person as well as quashing of the FIR under Section 174-A IPC.
Another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled as "Ashok Madan vs. State of Haryana and another" reported as 2020(4) RCR (Criminal) 87 has also held as under:-
"No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the offence under Section 174A 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.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.446 dated 21.08.2017, registered under Section 174A I.P.C. At Police Station Kotwali, District Faridabad, as well as consequential proceedings shall stand quashed."
A perusal of the relevant extract of the above judgment would show that where the main case was dismissed for want of prosecution, it was observed that the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC shall be an abuse of the process of court. A similar view has been expressed by this Court in "Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar and another, CRM-M-
5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2023 23:36:13 ::: -6- CRM-M-50456-2018 (O&M) 5878-2022 decided on 06.04.2022", "Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar and another, CRM-M-5755-2022 decided on 06.04.2022" and "Varinder Kumar @ Virender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and another, CRM-M-42551-
2021 decided on 19.04.2022".
In the present case the proceedings under Section 138 NI Act have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the complaint under Section 138 NI Act.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 30.08.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridabad and FIR No.834, dated 04.09.2018 (Annexure P-2) registered under Section 174-A of IPC at Police Station Ballabgarh City, District Faridabad along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
12.01.2023 (JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
Jitesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether Reportable:- Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2023 23:36:13 :::