Prem Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 21500 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Prem Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Another on 11 December, 2023

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                                              Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157943




CRM-M-62131-2023                 #1#                      2023:PHHC:157943

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH.


                                                              CRM-M-62131-2023

                                                     Date of Decision:-11.12.2023

Prem Kumar.

                                                                        ......Petitioner.
                                       Vs.

State of Punjab & Anr.

                                                                    ......Respondent.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:-    Mr. Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the Petitioner.

             Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

             None for the respondent no.2-The Bathinda Central Co-op.
             Bank Ltd., Ramuraphul, Tehsil-Phul, District Bathinda.

                                 ***

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)

This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of

the FIR No.49 dated 25.05.2019 under Section 174-A IPC registered at P.S.

Phul, District Bathinda, Punjab (Annexure P-2) as well as the charge framed

on dated 05.04.2022 (Annexure P-3) along with all consequential criminal

proceedings arising out of the same.

2. The brief facts of the case are that in discharge of his legal

liability, the petitioner/accused issued a cheque for an amount of

Rs.2,52,000/- dated 03.01.2018 in favour of the complainant. 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

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157943

CRM-M-62131-2023 #2# 2023:PHHC:157943

declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 18.04.2019 (Annexure P-1).

Pursuant to the said order, an FIR No.49 dated 25.05.2019 under Section

174-A IPC registered at P.S. Phul, District Bathinda (Annexure P-2) came to

be registered against him.

3. Thereafter, a compromise was effected between the parties and

the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the

order dated 03.11.2023 (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 FIR No.49

dated 25.05.2019 under Section 174-A IPC registered at P.S. Phul, District

Bathinda, Punjab (Annexure P-2) as well as the charge framed on dated

05.04.2022 (Annexure P-3) along with all consequential criminal

proceedings has been filed.

4. 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.

Thereafter, on 03.11.2023, the complainant in the Trial Court got recorded

its statement that 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

03.11.2023 (Annexure P-4).

5. Notice of motion.

6. On the asking of the Bench, Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, Deputy

Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice and has opposed the present

petition and has submitted that the FIR has been correctly registered.

7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has

perused the paper-book.

                                       2 of 5

                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157943




CRM-M-62131-2023                 #3#                 2023:PHHC:157943

8. 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.

9. 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 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."

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157943

CRM-M-62131-2023 #4# 2023:PHHC:157943

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.

10. 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, 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."

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157943

CRM-M-62131-2023 #5# 2023:PHHC:157943

11. 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".

12. In the present case the proceedings under the Negotiable

Instruments Act have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the

complaint.

13. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the

FIR No.49 dated 25.05.2019 under Section 174-A IPC registered at P.S.

Phul, District Bathinda, Punjab (Annexure P-2) as well as the charge framed

on dated 05.04.2022 (Annexure P-3) along with subsequent proceedings

arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

                                                ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
                                                     JUDGE
December 11, 2023
Vinay
        Whether speaking/reasoned                    Yes/No
        Whether reportable                           Yes/No




                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157943

                                       5 of 5