Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daljit Singh vs Jasbir Singh And Anr on 11 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:104582
CRM-M-39663-2023 2023:PHHC:104582
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(123)
CRM-M-39663-2023
Date of Decision:-11.08.2023
DALJIT SINGH ......Petitioner
Versus
JASBIR SINGH & ANOTHER ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocate
For respondent No.1.
Mr. Rajiv Goel, D.A.G., Haryana.
*** ***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of
the order dated 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Amritsar whereby the petitioner has been declared a
proclaimed person in NACT 2873 dated 09.08.2021 titled as Jasbir Singh
Vs. Daljit Singh (Annexure P-1).
The brief facts of the case are that in discharge of his legal
liability, the petitioner/accused issued a cheque No.104889 dated
25.06.2021 for amount of Rs.4,50,000/- in favour of respondent No.1-
complainanat. The said cheque came to be dishonoured. Pursuant thereto,
as no payment was made in lieu of the dishonoured cheque, a complaint
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act came to be instituted
against the petitioner/accused and he was summoned to face trial.
Subsequently, he was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated
26.08.2022 (Annexure P-3).
Thereafter, a compromise was effected between the parties and
the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:104582
CRM-M-39663-2023
2023:PHHC:104582
order dated 20.07.2023 (Annexure P-4). 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 the aforesaid order
dated 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class.
The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that he
had wrongly been declared a proclaimed person and on learning about the
same, the petitioner compromised the matter with the
complainant/respondent No.1. Thereafter, on 20.07.2023, the counsel for
respondent No.1-complainant in the Trial Court got recorded his statement
that as per his instructions, the complainant did not want to proceed further
with the present complaint and wanted to withdraw the same. Based on the
said statement, the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn on
20.07.2023 (P-4).
The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and
has submitted that the proclamation order has rightly been passed.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties 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 the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881. The impugned complaint 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:-
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:104582
CRM-M-39663-2023
2023:PHHC:104582
"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 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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:104582
CRM-M-39663-2023
2023:PHHC:104582
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 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,
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:104582
CRM-M-39663-2023
2023:PHHC:104582
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".
In the present case the proceedings under the Negotiable
Instruments Act have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the
complaint.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the
order dated 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Judicial Magistrate,
1st Class, Amritsar whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed
person in a complaint No.NACT 2873 dated 09.08.2021 stands quashed.
11.08.2023 (JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
Jitesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether Reportable:- Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:104582
5 of 5
