Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hanuk vs Janak Raj on 18 November, 2022
CRM-M-52982-2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-52982-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 16.11.2022
Hanuk ...Petitioner
Versus
Janak Raj and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present:- Mr. Dinesh Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)
Prayer in this petition is for quashing of order dated
19.12.2019, passed by the trial Court declaring the petitioner a proclaimed
person in criminal case No. CRM-204-2017 dated 02.01.2016, titled as
Janak Raj vs. Hanuk, filed under Section 138 of the N. I. Act as well as for
quashing of FIR No. 30 dated 23.03.2022, registered under Section 174-A
IPC at Police Station Division No. 1, Pathankot.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Rimple Saini, Advocate and Mr. Navneet Singh, DAG,
Punjab, who are present in Court, accept notice on behalf of respondent
No. 1 and respondent No. 2-State, respectively.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent
No. 1 Janak Raj has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N. I. Act on
account of dishonouring of two cheques of Rs. 6,10,000/- and
Rs. 7,10,000/- against the liability of Rs. 7,10,000/-, in which the petitioner
has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, vide judgment of
1 of 3
CRM-M-52982-2022 (O&M) -2-
conviction dated 17.12.2014 and order of sentence of the even date. It is
further submitted that during the pendency of the appeal before the lower
appellate Court, the matter was referred to National Lok Adalat, where on
14.02.2015, the matter was mutually settled between the parties and their
statements were recorded in this regard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per
settlement (Annexure P-7), it was agreed that the petitioner will pay back
the total amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- within a period of four months.
Thereafter, as the petitioner did not make the payment, the complainant
again moved an application before the lower appellate Court, in which the
petitioner was summoned and after the petitioner made the entire payment,
the said complaint/application was withdrawn.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view
of the said compromise between the parties, the impugned order dated
19.12.2019, declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person and subsequent
registration of FIR under Section 174-A IPC are nothing but the misuse of
the process of law as the things were beyond the control of the petitioner,
due to which he could not make the payment in terms of the compromise.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 1/complainant admits to
the factum of compromise.
On a Court query, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 does
not dispute that the entire amount has been paid to respondent No.
1/complainant in terms of the compromise and he has withdrawn the
complaint.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through
the orders passed by the trial Court, vide which the complaint was
2 of 3
CRM-M-52982-2022 (O&M) -3-
withdrawn, this Court is of the considered opinion that further prosecution
of the petitioner in pursuance of impugned order dated 19.12.2019 and
under the FIR in question registered under Section 174-A IPC is nothing but
the misuse of the process of law as no purpose will be served with the same
as the parties have already settled the dispute and the entire amount stands
paid to respondent No. 1/complainant.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned
order 19.12.2019, declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person as well as
FIR No. 30 dated 23.03.2022, registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police
Station Division No. 1, Pathankot are quashed along with all the subsequent
proceedings.
16.11.2022 (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
