Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lt. Col. Dharmender Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 11 March, 2022
CRM-M-7847-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(240)
CRM-M-7847-2022
Date of decision: - 11.03.2022
Lt. Col. Dharmender Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:- Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Khalid Tauru, Advocate
for Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
quashing of FIR No.683 dated 24.09.2018 (Annexure P-1), registered
under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be
referred as "the IPC") at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram
and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the
present case, respondent No.2 had filed a complaint under Section 25 of
the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 read with Section 357 of
For Subsequent orders see CRM-10461-2022 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
1 of 6
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the petitioner. It is further
submitted that in the said case, summoning order dated 19.04.2017
(Annexure P-3) was passed, but however, since the petitioner is a Lt. Col.
in the Army and was never duly served in the said proceedings, thereafter,
on 30.08.2018, the petitioner could not appear before the Court and on
account of that he was declared a proclaimed person. The Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram by the order dated 30.08.2018 (P-3) while
declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person, had also directed the police
station to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Section 174-A
IPC. It is on the basis of the said order that the present FIR has been
registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
further pointed that immediately after the petitioner learnt about the said
proceedings, the matter was settled with respondent No.2 and respondent
No.2, vide order dated 15.03.2019, had withdrawn his complaint as the
matter had been compromised. It is submitted that since the main
complaint has been withdrawn by the complainant, thus, the continuance
of the proceedings in the present FIR would be an abuse of the process of
Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of 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.
Leaned State counsel has opposed the present petition and
has stated that the petitioner had been declared as proclaimed person in
accordance with law and the present FIR has been registered against him
after an order was passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram
For Subsequent orders see CRM-10461-2022 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
2 of 6
to that effect.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has
submitted that the main complaint has already been withdrawn by
respondent No.2 as the matter has been compromised and he has no
objection in case the present petition is allowed and the FIR is quashed.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
has perused the paper book.
A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Baldev Chand
Bansal's case (supra) 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 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."
For Subsequent orders see CRM-10461-2022 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
3 of 6
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
coordinate 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, 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
For Subsequent orders see CRM-10461-2022 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
4 of 6
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 abuse of the process of court.
In the present case, it is not in dispute that respondent No.2
had filed a complaint under Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement
Systems Act, 2007 read with Section 357 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 against the petitioner and in the said complaint,
summoning order dated 19.04.2017 (P-3) was passed. It is the case of the
petitioner that he being a Lt. Col. in the Army was never duly served in
the said proceedings and on account of his non-appearance, order dated
30.08.2018 (P-4) declaring him as proclaimed person was passed. It is by
the said order that the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram directed
the police station to initiate the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC
against the petitioner and thereafter, the present FIR has been registered.
It is not disputed that the said complaint has already been compromised
and has been withdrawn by respondent No.2. The order dated 15.03.2019
passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram in this regard, is as
under: -
"Present: AR for complainant with Sh. Anurag Yadav,
Advocate.
File received from record room. It be restored to its original
number.
AR for the complainant has made a statement that he does not
want to proceed further with the present complaint and same may be
dismissed as withdrawn. His statement in this regard recorded
separately. Heard.
In view of aforesaid statement, present complaint is hereby
dismissed as withdrawn. File be consigned to record room after due
For Subsequent orders see CRM-10461-2022 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
5 of 6
compliance.
Announced in Daily Lok Adalat (Vivek Tomar)
15.03.2019 Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Gurugram/ UID No.HR0437."
From the above facts, it is apparent that the petitioner was
not duly served in proceedings under Section 25 of the Payment and
Settlement Systems Act, 2007 read with Section 357 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the said complaint has been withdrawn by
the complainant on account of the compromise effected between the
parties. In the said facts and circumstances, the continuation of
proceedings in FIR registered under Section 174-A of the IPC would be
an abuse of process of Court.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, as
well as the law laid down in the above said judgments, the present
petition is allowed and FIR No.483 dated 17.02.2020 registered under
Section 174-A of the IPC, at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District
Gurugram and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are
hereby quashed/set aside.
( VIKAS BAHL )
March 11, 2022 JUDGE
naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes
Whether reportable? Yes
For Subsequent orders see CRM-10461-2022 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
6 of 6
