Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sushil Rishi vs State Of Haryana And Another on 5 October, 2021
-1-
CRM-M-41568-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-41568-2021
Date of decision: 05.10.2021
Sushil Rishi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Sudhir Rana, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the
order dated 15.9.2017 (Annexure P-6), vide which the petitioner was
declared a proclaimed person and further for quashing of FIR No.291 dated
17.2.2020 registered under Section 174-A IPC, Police Station Baldev
Nagar, District Ambala (Annexure P-7) and all the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.
2 had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881, against the petitioner. Later, the said complaint was referred to
the Lok Adalat, where the matter was settled and accordingly, an award
was passed on 15.09.2016. He further submits that it was during the
execution proceedings, the warrants were issued against the petitioner and
ultimately, he was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 15.9.2017
(Annexure P-6). Learned counsel further submits that the award passed by
1 of 3
CRM-M-41568-2021
the Lok Adalat is at par with the Civil Court decree. He has placed reliance
on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in 'K.N. Govindan Kutty
Menon versus C.D. Shaji 2012 (2) SCC 51. Learned counsel yet further
submits that the entire amount as mentioned in the award, has since been
paid by the petitioner to the complainant-respondent No. 2.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of this Court, Mr. Ashok Singh Chaudhary,
Addl. A. G. Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Shreesh Kakkar, Advocate puts in an appearance on behalf
of respondent No.2 and files his memo of appearance on behalf of
respondent No.2, which is taken on record. He does not dispute the fact
that the amount in question has been paid to complainant-respondent No. 2
and nothing is due towards the petitioner.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
As noticed above, the petitioner has already paid the entire
amount subject matter of the award, to the complainant. The said position
stands duly admitted by the learned counsel for complainant-respondent
No. 2. As there exists no dispute between the petitioner and complainant-
respondent No. 2, continuing with the proceedings under Section 174-A
IPC, which had emanated from the non-compliance of the award passed by
the Lok Adalat, would be nothing, but a futile exercise. Still further, it was
during the execution of the award, the non-appearance of the petitioner had
resulted into him being declared as proclaimed person. However, as noticed
above, the awarded amount stands paid and thus, the coercive method,
adopted for securing the presence of the petitioner during execution
2 of 3
CRM-M-41568-2021
proceedings, cannot be allowed to continue in the form of the proceedings
under Section 174-A IPC.
Keeping in view the above, the petition is allowed. The order
dated 15.9.2017 (Annexure P-6) as well as FIR No.291 dated 17.2.2020
registered under Section 174-A IPC, Police Station Baldev Nagar, District
Ambala (Annexure P-7) and all the consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, are quashed.
05.10.2021 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
3 of 3
