Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manish Pahwa vs State Of Haryana on 31 August, 2022
CRM-M-6932-2022(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(253)
CRM-M-6932-2022(O&M)
Date of Decision:-31.08.2022
MANISH PAHWA
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, Asstt. A.G., Haryana.
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No.233, dated 29.07.2021 registered under Section 174-A of IPC at
Police Station Arya Nagar, District Rohtak, Haryana (Annexure P-1) which
was registered in consequent to the order dated 09.12.2019 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rohtak (Annexure P-2) declaring the
petitioner as proclaimed person in a complaint case under Section 138
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted against the
petitioner/accused at the instance of the complainant-Rinku Bhoria. As the
petitioner/accused did not appear before the Trial Court to face trial, he was
declared a proclaimed person as per the order dated 09.12.2019 (Annexure
1 of 6
CRM-M-6932-2022(O&M)
P-2) pursuant to which an FIR No.233 dated 29.07.2021 registered under
Section 174-A of IPC at Police Station Arya Nagar, District Rohtak,
Haryana (Annexure P-1) came to be instituted against him.
Subsequently, a compromise was effected between the parties
and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the
order dated 02.08.2021(Annexure P-3). In view of the dismissal of the
complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of
the compromise, the present petition for quashing of aforesaid FIR No.233,
dated 29.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) has been filed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was
never served in the said proceedings and he learnt about the said
proceedings only after the police raided his house, after being declared as a
proclaimed person. On learning about the same, the petitioner compromised
the matter with the complainant/respondent Thereafter, on 02.08.2021, the
learned counsel for the complainant in the Trial Court got recorded his
statement that as per his instructions, the complainant did not want to
proceed further with the present complaint and want to withdraw the same.
Based on the said statement, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn on
02.08.2021 (P-3).
The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and
has submitted that the FIR has been correctly registered.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned State counsel and has perused the paper-book.
From the above-said facts and circumstances, it is apparent
that the present FIR was registered in view of the fact that the petitioner
was declared as a proclaimed person in the proceeding under Section 138 of
2 of 6
CRM-M-6932-2022(O&M)
the Act of 1881. The impugned complaint under Section 138 of the Act of
1881 itself has been withdrawn.
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
3 of 6
CRM-M-6932-2022(O&M)
In view of the same, I find merit in the present petition
and accordingly, present petition is allowed and the impugned
order 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."
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 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 consideration for allowing the petition and
setting aside the order declaring the petitioner therein as proclaimed person
as well as quashing of the FIR under Section 174-A IPC.
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
4 of 6
CRM-M-6932-2022(O&M)
the fact that the present FIR was registered only on account of
absence from the proceedings in the main case which had been
subsequently regularised by the court while granting bail to the
petitioner, the default stood 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."
A perusal of the relevant extract of the above judgment would
show that where the main case was dismissed for want of prosecution, it
was observed that the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC
shall be an abuse of the process of court. A similar view has been expressed
by this Court in "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".
In the present case the proceedings under Section 138 NI Act
have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the complaint under
Section 138 NI Act.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the
FIR No.233, dated 29.07.2021 registered under Section 174-A of IPC at
Police Station Arya Nagar, District Rohtak, Haryana (Annexure P-1) which
was registered in consequent to the order dated 09.12.2019 passed by
5 of 6
CRM-M-6932-2022(O&M)
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rohtak (Annexure P-2) declaring the
petitioner as proclaimed person in a complaint case under Section 138
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is hereby quashed.
31.08.2022 (JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
Jitesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether Reportable:- Yes/No
6 of 6
