Raveena Begam vs State Of Punjab And Anr

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Raveena Begam vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 8 May, 2024

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064527
                                                                                   1



CRM-M
    M No.31164 of 2023


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

276

                                 CRM-M M No.31164 of 2023
                                 Date of Decision: 08.05.2024

RAVEENA BEGAM                                         ......Petitioner

             Vs

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR                               ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ
                                   MANUJA

Present:     Mr. Impinder Singh Dhaliwal,, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

             Mr. R.S. Sekhon, Advocate
             for respondent No.2.

                    ****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

[1]. By way of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for quashing of FIR No.146 dated 11.09.2022 registered under Section 174-A, A, IPC at Police Station City Rampura, District Bathinda along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. [2]. Briefly stating, the petitioner was summoned in a complaint filed under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the N.I. Act') and Secti Section 420 IPC at the instance of the complainant. On account of non-appearance non appearance of petitioner, proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were ordered against her and as a consequence thereof, she was declared as proclaimed person vide order dated 06.09.2022 followed by registration of FIR No.146 No. dated 11.09.2022 under Section 174 174-A IPC against her.

her 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 08:34:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064527 2 CRM-M M No.31164 of 2023 [3]. Impugning the aforementioned FIR No. No.146 dated 11.09.2022,, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was never served with the process of Court and as such she could not appear before the Trial Court. Learned counsel further points out that later, later, a settlement came to be arrived at between the parties as petitioner discharged her liability by paying the entire cheque amount in favour of complainant and in pursuance thereof, the statement of the complainant was also recorded to the effect that he does not want to proceed with the complaint and withdraws the same on 24.01.2023 before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phul. [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 aarising rising 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. State 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 she was having knowledge of pendency of proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as well as summoning order, but she deliberately berately chose not to appear before the Trial Court resulting into her declaration as proclaimed person followed by registration of FIR against her.

her However, learned counsel representing respondent No.2/complainant admits the factum of receipt of entire cheque amount and withdrawal of complaint by the complainant.

2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 08:34:59 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064527 3 CRM-M M No.31164 of 2023 [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 complaint under Section 138 of the 1881 Act, already stands withdrawn 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 othe otherwise, rwise, 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 23.12.2022 passed by the Trial Court. [8]. In view of discussion made hereinabove, FIR No.146 dated 11.09.2022 registered under Section 174-A, 174 A, IPC at Police Station City Rampura, District Bathinda along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom is hereby quashed.

                                                 (HARKESH MANUJA)
May 08, 2024                                         JUDGE
Atik


             Whether speaking/reasoned           Yes/No
             Whether reportable                  Yes/No




                                        3 of 3
                     ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 08:34:59 :::