Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Chander vs State Of Haryana And Another on 12 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159280
2023:PHHC:159280
128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-62446-2023
Date of decision: 12.12.2023
Ram Chander ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for
quashing of FIR No.0737 dated 28.08.2022 under Section 174-A of IPC
registered at Police Station Civil Line Sirsa, Sirsa (Annexure P-5) and all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.03.2019, the respondent No.2
filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in
short 'the Act') against the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Sirsa. It is further alleged that the petitioner had shifted to Mohali, SAS Nagar
in the year 2018 and set up a unit of installation of Aluminium Doors and
Windows at Kurali, Punjab and since then he is residing at Mohali and the same
fact was known to the complainant/respondent No.2 as he himself had
mentioned in his complaint about the address of the petitioner at Mohali but
intentionally the service of legal notice as well as summons and proclamation
were served at the village of the petitioner which he had left in the year 2018
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159280
2023:PHHC:159280
for his aforesaid work opportunity at Mohali. Further, when the petitioner did
not appear before the trial Court, as he was in Mohali, the trial Court has
initiated P.O. proceedings against him by observing that he is concealing
himself and avoiding his arrest and ultimately declared him proclaimed person
and the above mentioned FIR got registered against him. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the
petitioner was never served with the legal notice as well as summons and
proclamation and the petitioner does not have any intention of not appearing
before the trial Court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
legal notice, summons and proclamation issued to the petitioner were never
served as he was residing at Mohali and the summons were issued at the
address of his village and, therefore, the finding of the trial Court that the
petitioner is intentionally evading his arrest, is erroneous. Ultimately, vide order
dated 05.08.2022 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner has been declared as
proclaimed person, in result of which, an FIR under Section 174-A of IPC was
got registered against him. It is further contended that the said FIR is liable to
be set aside on the ground that the mandate of Section 82 (1) of Cr.P.C. has not
been followed in its letter and spirit by the trial Court.
4. He further submits that now matter has been compromised between
the parties and the main dispute was under Section 138 of the Act, out of which,
proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC have emerged, had already been con-
cluded vide order dated 30.10.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Judi-
cial Magistrate 1st Class, Sirsa in which inter alia stated that complainant
has made a statement in writing in this Court that accused has paid the entire
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159280
2023:PHHC:159280
cheque amount along with compensation to him and now he does not want to
proceed with the present complaint.
5. The question which arises for consideration of this Court is
whether on account of withdrawal of the complaint under Section 138 of the
Act, on the basis of compromise, the proceedings of FIR No.0737 dated
28.08.2022 under Section 174-A of IPC deserve to be quashed?
6. The stand of learned counsel representing the petitioner is that the
parties have settled the matter amicably which has resulted in withdrawal of the
complaint under Section 138 of the Act. In the factual backdrop of this case,
undisputedly, once the substantive offence already stands settled between the
petitioner and respondent No.2, the proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC
would be of no consequence.
7. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the various
pronouncements on the issue involved in the present case. In CRM-M-43813-
2018, Baldev Chand Bansal vs. State of Haryana and another, decided on
29.01.2019, Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another, 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 identical
circumstances, the Coordinate Benches of this Court have 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, the proceedings under Sec-
tion 174-A of IPC would not sustain either.
8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vikas Gupta vs. State of
Haryana and others, while quashing the FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159280
2023:PHHC:159280
in CRM-M-19636-2018 decided on 01.08.2018 has observed the following:-
"The ultimate aim, objective and goal of
a legal system is to reconcile the social conflicts.
Law is required only to ensure that people do not
have to fight with each other just to protect their
right to property, right to life and liberty and other
rights secured to them by the legal system. The civil
disputes are the conflicts between two parties,
having lesser overtones for the social order, social
harmony or the society as such. Hence absolute
freedom is given to the parties to settle their
disputes by compromises, of course, coming with
certain legal consequences as well. However, the
criminal disputes do not necessarily restrict
themselves to only two parties to the dispute in
terms of their scope, consequences and effect. The
criminal acts tend to cast their effect and
consequences even upon the society at large.
Therefore, the law prescribes punishment, severe
punishments and the extreme punishments,
including death penalty for criminal acts."
9. Notice of motion.
10. Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana who is present in Court, accepts
notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State has not been able to controvert the
aforesaid facts and the position of law as laid down in the aforesaid judgment.
11. This Court, while examining the facts and circumstances of the
present case, is ad idem with the view taken by the Coordinate Benches of this
Court that once the substantive offence has been settled through compromise
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159280
2023:PHHC:159280
between the petitioner and respondent No.2, the proceedings of FIR No.0737
dated 28.08.2022 under Section 174-A of IPC would not sustain either.
12. Accordingly the present petition is allowed. The proceedings of
FIR No.0737 dated 28.08.2022 under Section 174-A of IPC registered at Police
Station Civil Line Sirsa, Sirsa (Annexure P-5) along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed subject to payment of costs
of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Sirsa,
for wasting precious time of the Court.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
12.12.2023
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159280
5 of 5
