Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunita vs Jitender Kumar And Anr on 9 May, 2022
CRM-M-5943-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(265)
CRM-M-5943-2022
Date of Decision:-09.05.2022
Sunita
......Petitioner
Versus
Jitender Kumar & another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Bijender Singh Dhankar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana.
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of
the order dated 07.06.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Jhajjar in Complaint case No.COMA/273/2017 dated
19.08.2017 (Annexure P-2) vide which the petitioner was declared as a
proclaimed person in the aforesaid complaint.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
respondent No.1, namely, Jitender Kumar had lodged an FIR No.26 dated
14.01.2015 registered under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC at Police Station
Jhajjar against Anil i.e. husband of the petitioner and her sister-in-law
Seema. Ultimately, a compromise was arrived in between the parties and in
pursuance of the compromise, the husband of the petitioner handed over
three post dated cheques i.e. Cheques No.010352 dated 20.04.2017, 010354
dated 20.05.2017 and 536839 dated 20.06.2017 for an amount of
Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/-, respectively. Anil Kumar
along with his sister also filed a petition bearing CRM-M-9004-2017 for
quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise. It is however submitted
1 of 6
CRM-M-5943-2022
that the husband of the petitioner could not arrange the money and
ultimately, this Court was pleased to dismiss the quashing petition as
infructuous at that stage. However, liberty was granted to file the fresh
petition on the basis of compromise, if the contesting party still
acknowledges the compromise in accordance with law. He contends that
the cheques in question were dishonoured and the complainant lodged three
separate complaints on account of all three cheques under Sections 138 and
142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was summoned in the
said complaint and during the pendency of the complaint in question,
though the petitioner wanted to settle the dispute with the complainant-
respondent No.1, however, the petitioner could not arrange the money and
the petitioner also could not appear before concerned court in the said case.
Ultimately, the husband of the petitioner arranged the money and again
settled the matter with the complainant. It is however, submitted that on
07.06.2018, the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jhajjar. It is also submitted that on
14.06.2018, the petitioner had met with an accident and she remained
admitted in hospital for about 20 days and she had been operated upon
thrice and her follow up treatment continued upto 05.10.2020. It is further
submitted that the matter was fixed for 05.01.2022 and the complainant
appeared and made a statement that he does not want to pursue the
complaint as he has entered into compromise with the accused-Sunita. It is
also submitted that the petitioner was never served in the said proceedings
and she learnt about the said proceedings only after the police raided her
house, after being declared as a proclaimed person. On learning about the
same, the petitioner compromised the matter with the
2 of 6
CRM-M-5943-2022
complainant/respondent No.1. He has further submitted that the matter has
already been compromised pursuant to which, the complainant had
appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jhajjar on
05.01.2022 and made a statement qua the same (P-4) and (P-5), whereupon
the complaint in question has been permitted to be withdrawn (P-6).
The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.1 has
not disputed the facts as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and
has further submitted that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act have already been withdrawn and the matter has been
compromised. He also stated that he has no objection in case the present
FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
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 petitioner 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 petitioner
was declared as a proclaimed person 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
3 of 6
CRM-M-5943-2022
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."
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
4 of 6
CRM-M-5943-2022
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.
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
5 of 6
CRM-M-5943-2022
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 the
order dated 07.06.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Jhajjar in Complaint case No.COMA/273/2017 dated
19.08.2017 (Annexure P-2), vide which the petitioner was declared as a
proclaimed person, is hereby quashed.
09.05.2022 (JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
Jitesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether Reportable:- Yes/No
6 of 6
