Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rahul Dureja And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 16 December, 2022
CRM-M-58643-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
119
CRM-M-58643-2022
Decided on : 16.12.2022
Rahul Dureja and another
. . . Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. Kunwar Rajan, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
for quashing of FIR No. 161 dated 30.10.2017 under Section 174-A IPC
registered at Police Station Kabarwala and all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom and also for setting aside the order dated 17.10.2017 vide
which the petitioners were declared as proclaimed offenders in case titled
as M/s Puran Chand Vs. M/s Dureja Rice Mills and others.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a
complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with
Section 420 IPC was filed by M/s Pooran Chand and Co. (HUF),
Commission agents against the present petitioners and another accused and
in the said case, the petitioners were never served and were illegally
declared as proclaimed offenders vide the order dated 17.10.2017 and vide
same order, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate had directed the SHO
concerned to register FIR under Section 174-A and in pursuance of the
1 of 5
same, the FIR in question had been registered. It is contended that the
petitioners had appeared in the proceedings under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act and have been granted bail vide order dated
09.07.2021 (Annexure P-13) and have also been granted anticipatory bail
vide order dated 30.06.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri
Muktsar Sahib in the FIR under Section 174-A. It is further submitted that
the matter has been compromised and the complainant has withdrawn the
complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the
said facts are apparent from the order dated 16.09.2022 (Annexure P-17).
It is submitted that in view of the fact that the complaint under Section
138 of the NI Act has been withdrawn and the petitioners have appeared
in the proceedings, the impugned FIR and order dated 17.10.2017
deserve to be quashed/set aside.
Learned State counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 has
submitted that the FIR in question has been rightly registered in
pursuance of the order dated 17.10.2017 passed by the SDJM and thus,
the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
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.
2 of 5
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
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.
3 of 5
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 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 abuse of the process of court.
In the present case, the petitioners were declared as
proclaimed offenders in the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act
and the present FIR was ordered to be registered on account of the fact that
the petitioners had been declared as proclaimed offenders in the
proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act. It is further the case of the
petitioner that he was never duly served. It is apparent from the record that
the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act has been withdrawn
4 of 5
vide order dated 16.09.2022 and thus, the proceedings under Section 138
of the NI Act stand withdrawn by the complainant on the ground that the
matter has been compromised. The said order dated 16.09.2022 is annexed
as Annexure P-17. Thus, keeping the proceedings under Section 174-A
alive in such a situation would be an abuse of the process of the Court.
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances as
well as the law laid down in the abovesaid judgment, the present petition is
allowed and FIR No. 161 dated 30.10.2017 under Section 174-A IPC
registered at Police Station Kabarwala and all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom and also the order dated 17.10.2017 is set aside.
No notice is being issued to respondent No. 2 in the present
case as a perusal of the order dated 16.09.2022 would clearly show that
the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act has already been withdrawn
and respondent No. 2 is not the complainant in the impugned FIR as it was
registered on the order of the Court and thus, issuance of notice to the
respondent No. 2 would delay the proceedings and would unnecessarily
entail expenses for respondent No. 2 to bear for appearing and pursuing
the present case.
It is, however, made clear that in case, any averment made by
the petitioner is incorrect, it would be open to respondent No. 2 to move an
appropriate application.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
16.12.2022
Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
