Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 17 November, 2022
237 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-35450-2022
Date of decision: 17.11.2022
Raj Kumar ...........Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab.
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of order dated 28.08.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned
JMIC, Rajpura in complaint No.967 of 2017 dated 21.11.2017 titled as
'Varinder Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar' filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed
person as well as for quashing of FIR No.243 dated 18.09.2019 under
Section 174-A of IPC registered at Police Station City Rajpura, District
Patiala (Annexure P-2) and all other consequential proceedings arising
there from.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was not aware of filing of any complaint against him so he could not appear
before the trial Court and for that reason, proceedings under Section 174-A
IPC were initiated and FIR No.243 dated 18.09.2019 was registered.
He further submits that the main dispute which was under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, out of which, proceedings
under Section 174-A of IPC have been emerged, had already been
1 of 3
concluded vide order dated 12.03.2022 passed by the Presiding Officer,
National Lok Adalat, Rajpura as the matter had been compromised between
the parties.
He submits that once the original proceedings have come to an
end with the compromise between the parties, therefore, the present
proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC arising out of the original
proceedings should also come to an end. To support his contention he
relies upon the judgment of this Court passed in 'Aditya Goyal vs. State of
Haryana' CRM-M-11269-2019 decided on 07.05.2019.
In the above said judgment, this Court has quashed the
proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC where the main proceedings have
already been concluded. The relevant portion from Aditya Goyal's case
(Supra) is as under:-
"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 174-A of IPC shall be nothing but an abuse of the process of
law.
Learned State counsel, on instructions from the Investigating
Officer, has not disputed the factual position.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the
present petition.
Since the main complaint filed by the complainant under Section
138 of the N.I. Act itself stands dismissed as withdrawn by the trial
Court keeping in view the fact that petitioner has cleared the entire dues
and on the direction of this Court, the petitioner has already appeared
before the Investigating Officer and has also deposited the cost of
`10,000/- with the Illaqa Magistrate, this Court is of the opinion that
continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC shall be an abuse
of process of law.
Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstance of the case
and also in view of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, this
petition is allowed and order dated 03.12.2018 (Annexure P-1), passed
by the trial Court in Criminal Complaint No. 1624/2017 dated
12.09.2017, filed under Section 138 of the N. I. Act, vide which,
the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person as well as other
2 of 3
consequential proceedings arising therefrom including FIR No. 66 dated
01.02.2019, registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station
Jagadhri City, District Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P-2) are hereby
quashed."
To the same effect, another judgment passed in 'Lakhwinder
Singh versus State of Punjab' CRM-M-37155-2021 decided on 16.11.2021
also supports the present case.
Learned State counsel has not disputed the fact that the matter
has been compromised.
A perusal of order dated 12.03.2022 passed by the Presiding
Officer, National Lok Adalat, Rajpura makes it clear that the matter has
been settled between the parties. Consequently, no fruitful purpose would
be served in continuing the proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC.
Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated 28.08.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned
JMIC, Rajpura in complaint No.967 of 2017 dated 21.11.2017 titled as
'Varinder Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar' filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed
person as well as for quashing of FIR No.243 dated 18.09.2019 under
Section 174-A of IPC registered at Police Station City Rajpura, District
Patiala (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,
are hereby quashed, on the basis of compromise, qua the petitioner only.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
17.11.2022 JUDGE
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
