Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naresh Kanwrani vs State Of Haryana And Others on 23 November, 2022
238 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-37614-2022
Date of decision: 23.11.2022
Naresh Kanwrani ...........Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Swetab Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Vineet Sehgal, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read
with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of
impugned order dated 18.09.2018 in a case bearing NACT No.15848 of
2016 dated 17.12.2016 under Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement
Systems Act, 2007, whereby, petitioner has been declared a proclaimed
person in FIR No.0843 dated 18.10.2018 under Section 174-A of IPC
registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was not aware of the complaint filed against him, therefore, he could not
appear before the trial Court and for that reason, proceedings under Section
174-A IPC were initiated and FIR No.0843 dated 18.10.2018 was
registered.
He further submits that the main dispute which was under
Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, out of which,
proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC have been emerged, had already
1 of 3
been concluded vide order dated 13.08.2022 passed by the Presiding
Officer, National Lok Adalat, Gurugram, as the matter had been withdrawn
by the complainant.
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 and counsel for respondent No.2 have
not disputed the fact that the matter has been compromised.
A perusal of order dated 13.08.2022 passed by the Presiding
Officer, National Lok Adalat, Gurugram, 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 18.09.2018 in a case bearing NACT No.15848 of
2016 dated 17.12.2016 under Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement
Systems Act, 2007, whereby, petitioner has been declared a proclaimed
person and FIR No.0843 dated 18.10.2018 under Section 174-A of IPC
registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram and all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed, on the basis of
compromise, qua the petitioner only.
The present petition stands disposed off accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
23.11.2022 JUDGE
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
