Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rahul Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another on 10 April, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
121
2024:PHHC:049002
CRM-M-17636-2024
Date of decision: April 10th, 2024
Rahul Kumar
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Lakhwinder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.43 dated 29.01.2020 under Section 174-A of the IPC registered at Police Station Barwala, District Hisar, along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has drawn the attention of this Court to order dated 13.08.2022 (Annexure P-3), wherein it stands reflected that in view of a statement made by learned counsel for the complainant, the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI Act') was dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of a compromise. A prayer, therefore, has been made that in the aforementioned facts and circumstances, no purpose would be served by prosecuting the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Sher Singh vs. State of Haryana (CRM-M-11846-2023) decided on 09.03.2023, wherein in identical facts and circumstances, the FIR registered under Section PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.04.10 18:07 174-A of the IPC against the petitioner was quashed. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-17636-2024 -2-
3. Notice of motion.
4. On asking of the Court, Ms. Trishanjali Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
5. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by the counsel opposite and contended that it was evident that the petitioner had intentionally not appeared during the proceedings before the Court below and hence, the prayer of the petitioner deserved to be declined.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.
7. The petitioner was declared a proclaimed person in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act. Admittedly, the said complaint was withdrawn after the parties arrived at a compromise. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings for offence under Section 174-A of the IPC would serve no useful purpose.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR registered under Section 174-A of the IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
April 10th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2024.04.10 18:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh