Davindra Mahajan vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 5905 P&H

CRM-M-24841-2022                                                       -1-



156
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH


                                                CRM-M-24841-2022.
                                                Decided on : June 02, 2022.
Davindra Mahajan

                                                                  ... Petitioner

                                       Versus

State of Haryana

                                                                ... Respondent


CORAM:             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL


PRESENT:           Mr.Rishu Mahajan, Advocate,
                   for the petitioner.

                   Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

with a prayer for quashing of FIR No.338 dated 14.03.2019 registered

under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be

referred as "the IPC") at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram and all

the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

Sunaura Technologies Private Limited had filed a complaint under

Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

read with Section 120-B and 420 IPC, against the present petitioner and

1 of 7

two more accused. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not aware

of the said proceedings and was declared a proclaimed person on

6.2.2019 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, with a

direction to the concerned Police Station, to initiate proceedings under

Section 174-A IPC and on account of the same the impugned FIR was

registered under Section 174-A IPC. It is further submitted that thereafter,

the petitioner was arrested on 7.8.2019 and was granted bail and he

compromised the matter with the complainant in the complaint under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and vide order dated

16.1.2020, the said complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, has been withdrawn in view of the compromise. It is

further submitted that since the main proceedings under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, have already been compromised thus,

keeping the present FIR alive would be an abuse of the process of the

Court.

Notice of motion.

On advance notice, Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG,

Haryana, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the State and has

submitted that he is fully prepared to argue the matter and assist this

Court. He has opposed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and

has submitted that the FIR has been registered in pursuance of order dated

6.2.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram vide

which the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person.

2 of 7

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties

and has perused the paper book.

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 In view of the same, I find merit in the present petition and accordingly, present petition is allowed and

3 of 7

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 of

the IPC in view of the order passed in proceedings under Section 138 of

the Act of 1881, 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 of 1881

stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties,

the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A of the 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 of the 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,

4 of 7

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 174 A 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 of the IPC shall be an abuse of the process of court.

In the present case, it is not in dispute that the

complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 was filed by Sunaura

Technologies Private Limited and it is in the said proceedings that the

petitioner was declared as proclaimed person vide order dated 6.2.2019

and a direction was given to the concerned Police Station to initiate

proceedings against the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC and in

pursuance of the said impugned order, present FIR under Section 174-A

of the IPC, was registered.

A perusal of the order dated 16.1.2020 (Annexure P-3)

would show that there has been a compromise in the said complaint under

5 of 7

Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and the complainant has withdrawn the

said complaint. The order dated 16.1.2020 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"Present: AR of complainant in person with Sh. Vijay Shukla, Adv.

Accused Devandra Mahajan on bail with Sh.Rajesh Sabhaarwal, Adv.

Accused Rakesh Goswami already acquitted vide order and judgment dated 23.05.2019.

Today the case was fixed for cross examination of DW1. However, AR of complainant appeared and suffered a statement that complainant wants to withdraw the present complaint as payment has been made by accused pertaining to the cheque and prayed that present complaint may kindly be dismissed as withdrawn. In view of his statement, present complaint stands dismissed as withdrawn. Proceeding against accused stands dropped. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Date of order:-16.01.2020 (Upendra Singh), JMIC/Gurugram UID No. HR0362."

It is the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of

the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and was

subsequently arrested and released on bail. It has been held in the

abovesaid judgments that in a similar situation, keeping the proceedings

under Section 174-A of the IPC alive would be an abuse of the process of

the Court. Moreover, the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed

person would prove to be insignificant inasmuch as the main complaint

6 of 7

filed under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 itself has been withdrawn.

Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances,

as well as the law laid down in the abovesaid judgments, the present

petition is allowed and FIR No.338 dated 14.03.2019 registered under

Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Shivaji Nagar,

Gurugram and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are

quashed/set aside.

June 02, 2022.                                (VIKAS BAHL)
raj arora                                        JUDGE


           Whether speaking/reasoned:-              Yes/No
           Whether reportable:-                     Yes/No




                               7 of 7