Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasbir Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100854
2023:PHHC:100854
CRM-M-38143-2023 (O & M) ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-38143-2023 (O & M)
Date of decision:04.08.2023
Jasbir Singh ...... Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana and anr. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Pawan Attri, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajiv Goel, DAG, Haryana.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of
the impugned order dated 14.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra in complaint bearing No.NACT No.187 of
2021 dated 15.03.2021 whereby the petitioner had been declared a
proclaimed person as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted against the
petitioner/accused at the instance of the complainant-firm/respondent No.2-
M/s Bal Kishan Dass Raj Kishan Dass through its Proprietor Pushpender
Kumar. As the petitioner/accused did not appear before the Trial Court to
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100854
2023:PHHC:100854
CRM-M-38143-2023 (O & M) ::2::
face trial, he was declared a proclaimed person as per the order dated
14.02.2023 (Annexure P-2).
3. Subsequently, the learned counsel for the complainant
appeared before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra and
suffered a statement that a compromise had been effected between the
accused and the complainant. Therefore, he withdrew the complaint bearing
No.NACT No. 187 of 2021under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act and, therefore, the complaint in question was dismissed as withdrawn
vide order dated 20.05.2023 (Annexure P-2). In view of the dismissal of the
complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of
the compromise, the present petition for quashing of aforesaid order dated
14.02.2023 (Annexure P-1).
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order (Annexure P-1) came to be passed against the petitioner due
to his non-appearance in the aforementioned complaint. Thereafter, the
matter was compromised between the parties and the petitioners-accused..
On 20.05.2013, the complainant firm through its counsel got recorded his
statement before the Trial Court that since the matter had been compromised
between the parties, therefore, he did not want to proceed further with the
complaint and want to withdraw the same. Based on the said statement, the
complaint was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.05.2013 (P-2).
The learned appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1-State
has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the impugned order
(Annexure P-1) has been correctly passed.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100854
2023:PHHC:100854
CRM-M-38143-2023 (O & M) ::3::
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 order (Annexure P-1) was passed in view of the fact that the petitioner
did not appear before the Trial Court to face the trial in the proceeding in a
complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. The aforementioned
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 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
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100854
2023:PHHC:100854
CRM-M-38143-2023 (O & M) ::4::
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
the order passed in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, while
declaring the petitioner therein as a 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 considerations for allowing the petition and
setting aside the order declaring the petitioner therein as a proclaimed person
as well as for 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:-
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100854
2023:PHHC:100854
CRM-M-38143-2023 (O & M) ::5::
"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 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".
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100854
2023:PHHC:100854
CRM-M-38143-2023 (O & M) ::6::
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 14.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Kurukshetra in complaint bearing No. NACT-187-2021 dated
15.03.2021 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby
quashed qua the petitioner.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
August 04, 2022
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100854
6 of 6
