Atul Rajput vs State Of Haryana And Another

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Atul Rajput vs State Of Haryana And Another on 8 May, 2024

                                      Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064418
                                                                                 1



CRM-M
    M No.23994 of 2022

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

271

                                CRM-M M No.23994 of 2022
                                Date of Decision: 08.05.2024

ATUL RAJPUT                                          ......Petitioner
         Vs
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER                         ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ
                                   MANUJA

Present:    Mr. Arnav Kumar,
                        Kumar Advocate
            for the petitioner.

        Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Asstt. A.G., Haryana.
             ****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

[1]. By way of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for quashing of order dated 20.07.2017 (Annexure P-3)) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala, Ambala, whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in the proceedings arising out of case bearing COMA No.2031 of 2016 dated 20.10.2016 followed by registration of FIR No. No.315 dated 05.09.2017 registered under Section 174-A 174 A IPC at Police Station Ambala Cantt., Haryana. [2]. Briefly stating, the petitioner was summoned in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the N.I. Act') at the instance of the complainant. On account of non-

non appearance of petitioner, proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were ordered against him and as a consequence thereof, he was declared as proclaimed person vide order dated 20.07.2017 followed by registration of FIR No. No.315 dated 05.09.2017 under Section 174-A 174 IPC against him him.

1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 15-05-2024 20:37:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064418 2 CRM-M M No.23994 of 2022 [3]. Impugning the aforementioned order and FIR, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was never served with the process of Court as he was not residing on the address mentioned in the complaint complaint/notice /notice at the relevant time and as such he could not appear before the Trial Court. He further points out that later, ater, a settlement came to be arrived at between the parties as petitioner discharged his liability by paying the entire cheque amount in favour of complainant and in pursuance thereof, the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. N.I Act, was withdrawn by complainant and complaint file was ordered to be consigned to record room, vide order dated 12.06.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambala. Moreover, the petitioner also volunteers to provide two patient stretchers-cum-trolley stretchers trolley with mattress and one wheelchair to the Sub-

Sub Divisional Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt, Haryana so as further the public cause. [4]. Learned counsel further submits that once the main proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act Act have already come to an end, no useful purpose is going to be served by continuing with the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question. In support, he relies upon judgments of this Court, passed in CRM-M CRM No.16449 of 2018 titled as "Satish Satish Kumar vs. Sta State te of Haryana and another"

another and CRM-M M No.30911 of 2021, 2021 titled as "Ram Kumar Rana vs. State of Haryana and another".

[5]. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made on behalf of petitioner while submitting that he was having knowledge of pendency of proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as well as summoning order, but he deliberately chose not to appear before the Trial Court resulting into his declaration as proclaimed person followed by registration of FI FIR against him.

2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 15-05-2024 20:37:30 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064418 3 CRM-M M No.23994 of 2022 [6]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. [7]. Once, the complaint under Section 138 of the 1881 Act, already stands withdrawn wn by complainant on having received the entire cheque amount in dispute, no useful purpose is going to be served by carrying on with the proceedings arising out of the present FIR. Even otherwise, the case of petitioner is fully covered with the judgments passed by this Court in Satish Kumar and Ram Kumar Rana's cases (supra). Moreover, the petitioner has already been admitted to bail vide order dated 12.09.2017 passed by the Trial Court. [8]. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the present petition is allowed, however subject to providing two patient stretchers stretchers-cum-trolley trolley with mattress and one wheelchair to the Sub-Divisional Sub Divisional Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt, Haryana, within a period of three weeks from today as volunteered by the petitioner against due receipt, receipt issued by the concerned Civil Surgeon. A copy of the receipt shall also placed before the concerned Trial Court. Accordingly,, the impugned order dated 20.07.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala declaring petitioner as proclaimed person is sset aside and as a consequence thereof, the resultant FIR No.315 315 dated 05.09.2017 registered under Section 174-A 174 IPC at Police Station Ambala Cantt. Haryana, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is also quashed.

                                              (HARKESH MANUJA)
May 08, 2024                                      JUDGE
Atik
             Whether speaking/reasoned        Yes/No
             Whether reportable               Yes/No




                                     3 of 3
                  ::: Downloaded on - 15-05-2024 20:37:30 :::