Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lokesh Goel vs State Of Punjab And Another on 8 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048830
CRM-M-17138-2024 -1 2024:PHHC:048830
150 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-17138-2024
Date of Decision:08.04.2024
Lokesh Goel ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and Anr. ...Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present: Mr. Parunjeet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. I.P.S Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.
Ms. Amisha Batra, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C with a prayer to quash FIR No. 29 dated 14.02.2020 under Section 174-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Chheharta, Police Commissionerate Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and the order dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, whereby the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in a complaint titled as " Vansh Creations Vs. Dev Bhoomi and Anr".
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No.2 had filed a complaint, NACT No. 9179 of 2017, titled as "Vansh Creations Vs.Dev Bhoomi and Anr." under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against the present petitioner for dishonour of three cheques i.e cheque No. 627969 dated 18.08.2017 for a sum of Rs.5 lacs, cheque No.627970 dated 30.08.2017 for a 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 15-04-2024 22:26:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048830 CRM-M-17138-2024 -2 2024:PHHC:048830 sum of Rs.5 lacs and cheque No.627971 dated 30.08.2017 for a sum of Rs.6,35,800/-, which were all drawn on SBI Bank, Dhalpur, Kullu. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner was a resident of Himachal Pradesh and he could not appear before the Trial Court. Consequently, vide order dated 31.07.2019, he was wrongly declared as a proclaimed person, without following the due process of law and orders were issued to sent the intimation to concerned SHO for initiating the proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC. Learned counsel further contends that in view of the order (Annexure P-3), the police registered a FIR No. 29 dated 14.02.2020 under Section 174-A of IPC, Police Station Chheharta, Police Commissionerate Amritsar (Annexure P-1) against the present petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that when the petitioner came to know about the registration of the FIR, he had compromised the matter with respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 had withdrawn the main complaint from the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar. Even learned counsel placed reliance on the order (Annexure P-6) passed by the Trial Court, during the National Lok Addalat held on 13.08.2022 at Amritsar. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order was passed by the Trial Court just to procure the presence of the petitioner in a criminal trial, no purpose will be served with the continuation of the proceedings as the main complaint has already been withdrawn by the respondent No.2/complainant.
3. On advance notice, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner had intentionally evading the process of law and did not appear before the Trial Court. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality in the impugned order passed by the 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 15-04-2024 22:26:18 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048830 CRM-M-17138-2024 -3 2024:PHHC:048830 Trial Court and the petition deserves to be dismissed by this Court.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that the respondent has no objection in case, the impugned order (Annexure P-3) and all the subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, as the main complaint has already been withdrawn by the respondent No.2 from the Trial Court.
5. 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. 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 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 15-04-2024 22:26:18 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048830 CRM-M-17138-2024 -4 2024:PHHC:048830 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."
6. 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 a 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 aspect was one of the main considerations for allowing the petition and setting aside the order declaring the petitioner therein as a proclaimed person as well as quashing of the FIR under Section 174-A IPC.
7. 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 regularized by the court while granting bail to the petitioner, the default stood 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 15-04-2024 22:26:18 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048830 CRM-M-17138-2024 -5 2024:PHHC:048830 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."
8. In the present case also, the main case has already been withdrawn by the complainant. Consequently, the continuation of the proceedings arising from the impugned order dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure P-3) and FIR No. 29 dated 14.02.2020 under Section 174-A of IPC, registered at Polcie Station Chheharta, Police Commissionerate Amritsar (Annexure P-1) would be an abuse of process of the Court. Similar observations have been made by this Court in the matter of "Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar and another, CRM-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" .
9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure P-3) and FIR No. 29 dated 14.02.2020 under Section 174-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Chheharta, Police Commissionerate Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby ordered to be quashed.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
08.04.2024 JUDGE
hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 15-04-2024 22:26:18 :::