Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 August, 2022
CRM-M-21765-2022 ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-21765-2022 (O & M)
Date of decision: 25.08.2022
Harwinder Singh ... Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ravinder Singh, AAG, Punjab.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
for quashing FIR No.171 dated 26.07.2019 under Section 174-A IPC
registered with Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran
(Annexure P-2) and also all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the HDFC Bank instituted a
complaint under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner-Harwinder
Singh had availed a KGC loan facility as well as term limit loan facility
from the complainant-Bank to the tune of Rs.8,50,000/- through Loan
account No.06418680001349 and in discharge of his liability had issued the
cheque bearing No.008351 dated 07.03.2017 for a sum of Rs.8,50,000/-
drawn at Centurian Bank of Punjab Ltd. now known as HDFC Bank which
1 of 6
CRM-M-21765-2022 ::2::
on presentation was returned dishonored with the remarks "Funds
Insufficient" vide memo dated 22.05.2017. Thereafter, the complainant-
Bank had issued a legal notice dated 10.06.2017 but despite receipt of the
aforesaid notice the petitioner had failed to make the payment. Therefore,
the complainant (Annexure P-1) was instituted at the instance of HDFC
Bank.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner was never served in the said complaint and the Chief Judicial
Magistrate vide its order dated 09.03.2018 had issued proclamation under
Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. and vide its order dated 30.11.2018, the Chief Judicial
Magistrate directed the SHO, Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran to initiate
proceedings against the petitioner/accused-Harwinder Singh under Section
174-A IPC. Accordingly, an FIR No.171 dated 26.07.2019 under Section
174-A IPC with Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran came to
be registered against the present petitioner. The learned counsel contends
that vide order dated 03.12.2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, the petitioner was granted the concession of
interim anticipatory bail, which was confirmed vide order dated 13.12.2019
(Annexure P-4). Thereafter, the petitioner came to know about the
pendency of the complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 instituted by the HDFC Bank.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner/accused had compromised the said matter and repaid the entire
loan amount to the complainant-Bank. No objection certificate dated
22.02.2022 issued by the complainant-Bank in favour of the petitioner
is annexed to the petition as Annexure P-5. On the basis of a settlement
2 of 6
CRM-M-21765-2022 ::3::
effected between the parties, the matter was taken up before the Lok Adalat
and after recording the statement of both the parties on 18.02.2022, the
complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was
dismissed as withdrawn and petitioner/accused-Harwinder Singh was
acquitted of the notice served upon him vide order dated 12.03.2022
(Annexure P-6).
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 petitioners 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 petitioners were
declared as a proclaimed persons in the proceeding under Section 138 of 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)
3 of 6
CRM-M-21765-2022 ::4::
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
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, 1 st
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 case
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 would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The
said aspect was one of the main considerations for allowing the petition and
setting aside the order declaring the petitioner therein as a proclaimed person
as well as quashing of the consequential 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 held as under:-
4 of 6
CRM-M-21765-2022 ::5::
"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
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 FIR
No.171 dated 26.07.2019 (Annexure P-2) under Section 174-A IPC
5 of 6
CRM-M-21765-2022 ::6::
registered with Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran and all
subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
August 25, 2022
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
