Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Aneja vs Stae Of Punjab And Anr on 13 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160205
CRM-M-50802 of 2023 1 2023:PHHC:160205
285
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-50802 of 2023
Date of Decision: 13.12.2023
JAGDISH ANEJA
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY.
Present:- Mr. N.K.Khepar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Mahipal Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
*****
SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking quashing of
order dated 02.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Patiala in Complaint bearing No. COMA/530/2019
dated 15.02.2019 (Annexure P-1) registered under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act and FIR (Annexure P-3) and all subsequent
proceedings resulting therefrom :-
FIR No. Dated Sections Police Station
89 24.06.2023 174-A IPC Division 4, District Patiala
2. In nutshell, the brief facts of the case are that Neetu-
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160205
CRM-M-50802 of 2023 2 2023:PHHC:160205
respondent-complainant No.2 is a proprietor of firm namely New Subham
Enterprises, near Bir Ji Marian, Swaran Vihar, Patiala which deals with baby
feeder products, filed a criminal complaint stating that complainant
purchased baby feeder products from the M/s Bonne Care Private Limited
accused-petitioner on different occasion but the complainant returned the
above said articles and demanded the amount paid against them. Petitioner-
accused issued cheques which were dishonoured. Aggrieved complainant
filed Complaint No. COMA/530/2019 dated 15.02.2019 (Annexure P-1)
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner
titled as New Shubham Enterprises through Prop Neetu Vs M/s Bonne Care
Private Limited through Ashok Aneja etc. Vide impugned order dated
02.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Patiala, petitioner was declared as proclaimed person and SHO concerned
was directed to pursue the procedure 174-A Cr.P.C and FIR No. 89 dated
24.06.2023(Annexure P-3) was registered against the petitioner and hence
the petition for quashing of the impugned order as well as all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
3. It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was
filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner wherein the petitioner was
never served and ultimately vide order dated 02.07.2022 (Annexure P-2), he
was declared as proclaimed person in this case. He further submits that
subsequently vide order dated 09.09.2023 (Annexure P-5), the aforesaid
complaint had been compromised and withdrawn by respondent No.2 and
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160205
CRM-M-50802 of 2023 3 2023:PHHC:160205
the petitioner was discharged from the proceedings of the case. He submits
that the impugned order (Annexure P-2) is per se illegal having been passed
in violation of the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and the consequent
FIR (Annexure P-3) registered on the basis of the impugned order after one
year thereof, is also liable to be set aside. He further submits that original
proceedings i.e. the aforesaid complaint has already come to an end on the
basis of compromise, therefore, present proceedings under Section 174-A
IPC should also come to an end. He has referred to the judgments cited as
Murli Jha vs. State of Haryana, 2021(3) R.C.R. Criminal 563; Sher Singh
Rana vs. State of Haryana and another 2023(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 185;
Randhir Singh Tyagi vs. State of Haryana and another 2022(3) DCR 469;
Nirmal Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others 2023 (244) AIC 676 and
Luxmi Devi vs. State of Haryana and another, 2021(1) L.A.R 310; to argue
that since the main complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act has been withdrawn by the complainant on the basis of
amicable settlement, therefore, the present proceedings arising out of the
FIR No. 89 dated 24.06.2023 (Annexure P-3) under Section 174-A IPC shall
be quashed and consequential proceedings arising therefrom be also set
aside.
4. The learned State counsel has filed the reply dated 12.12.2023
by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police City-1, District
Patiala and submits that the petitioner had been declared as proclaimed
person by the competent Court, and present FIR was lawfully registered
against the petitioner. However, he admitted the factum of compromise and
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160205
CRM-M-50802 of 2023 4 2023:PHHC:160205
withdrawal of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act, against the petitioner vide order dated 09.09.2023 (Annexure P-5).
5. Mr. Mahipal S. Yadav, Advocate has put in appearance on
behalf of Complainant-respondent No.2 and filed Vakalatnama. The same is
taken on record. He submits that the matter has been compromised between
the parties and statement in this regard had been made vide Annexure P-4
dated 09.09.2023 and vide Annexure P-5 dated 09.09.2023 aforesaid
complaint has been dismissed as withdrawn.
6. I have heard the respective submission made by the learned
counsels, representing the petitioner and the State.
7. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record,
it is not disputed that a complaint (Annexure P-1) was filed under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner and the present
petitioner was declared proclaimed person vide order dated 02.07.2022
(Annexure P-2) in the said complaint and on the basis thereof, the
impugned FIR No. 89 dated 24.06.2023 (Annexure P-3) was registered
against him. It is not disputed that the aforesaid complaint has since been
withdrawn by the complainant vide order dated 09.09.2023 (Annexure P-5)
on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties. It is the case of the
petitioner that summons were not served to him properly and the subsequent
proceedings resulting him to be declared as proclaimed person. It has been
held in the judgments referred to above that when the main complaint in
which the petitioner has been declared proclaimed person have been
withdrawn on the basis of amicable settlement then continuation with the
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160205
CRM-M-50802 of 2023 5 2023:PHHC:160205
proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be nothing but the abuse of the
process of law.
8. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the
present case, without going into the controversy as to whether the petitioner
was aware of the proceedings going against him under the Negotiable
Instrument Act or not; the fact remains that the petitioner had been declared
as proclaimed person in the complaint referred to above vide the impugned
order dated 02.07.2022 and the complaint has already been dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 09.09.2023 (Annexure P-5), meaning thereby
with the dismissal of the complaint the impugned order passed during the
course of proceedings of the complaint had already stood culminated,
therefore, the registration of the present FIR on the basis of above said order
declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person would not serve any purpose
and keeping the said FIR and consequent proceedings alive after the
dismissal of the complaint would not serve any purpose but would be abuse
of process of law.
9. Consequently, keeping in view the above said facts and
circumstances, the present petition is allowed, impugned FIR No.89 dated
24.06.2023 registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Division 4,
District Patiala (Annexure P-3) as well as the order dated 02.07.2022
(Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Patiala whereby the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person in
complaint No. COMA/530/2019 titled as New Shubham Enterprises through
Prop Neetu Vs M/s Bonne Care Private Limited through Ashok Aneja etc.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160205
CRM-M-50802 of 2023 6 2023:PHHC:160205
(Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are
hereby set aside.
10. Petition stand allowed.
(SANJIV BERRY)
JUDGE
13.12.2023
Gyan
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
ii) Whether reportable? Yes
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160205
6 of 6
