Punjab-Haryana High Court
Javed Hassan vs State Of Haryana And Another on 8 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
207 CRM-M-53719-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.12.2022
Javed Hassan
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. Digvijay Singh Nehra, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rupinder Singh Jhand, Addl. AG Haryana.
None for respondent No.2.
****
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in the petition is for quashing of FIR No. 231 dated
13.03.2018, registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station City
Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar.
As per the office report, the service is complete, but there is no
representation on behalf of respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a complaint under
Section 138 of the NI Act read with Section 420 IPC was filed by respondent
No.2 against the petitioner for dishonouring of cheque of Rs. 3 lakh; that on
the basis of order dated 13.03.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
1st Class, Jagadhari, the FIR in question was registered against the petitioner;
that the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated
1 of 4
17.01.2018 and the charges were framed on 24.09.2019; that during the
pendency of the case, a compromise was effected between the parties and on
the statement of respondent No.2-complainnat, the complaint under Section
138 of NI Act was withdrawn vide order dated 19.09.2018.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also
gone through the documents on record.
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.
In view of the same, I find merit in the present petition and
accordingly, present petition is allowed and the impugned order
2 of 4
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 in the said proceedings, 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 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
3 of 4
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.
Consequently, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 231 dated
13.03.2018, registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station City
Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar and all the consequent proceedings arising
therefrom are quashed.
(HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
08.12.2022 JUDGE
Mangal Singh
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
4 of 4
