Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kalawati vs State Of Haryana And Another on 13 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159570
1
CRM-M No.62732 of 2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:159570
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
138
CRM-M No.62732 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 13.12.2023
KALAWATI ......Petitioner
Vs
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Lakhwinder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)
[1]. By way of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been
made for quashing of order dated 28.09.2022 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ratia, whereby the petitioner was declared as
proclaimed person in the proceedings arising out of case bearing No.CHI/188/2020
titled as 'State vs. Kalawati' followed by registration of FIR No.24 dated
29.01.2020 registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station City Ratia,
District Fatehabad.
[2]. Briefly stating, petitioner was summoned under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the N.I. Act') in
the complaint filed at the instance of the complainant. On account of non-
appearance of petitioner, proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were ordered
against petitioner and as a consequence thereof, she was declared as proclaimed
person vide order dated 28.09.2022 followed by registration of FIR No.24 dated
29.01.2020 under Section 174-A IPC against her.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159570
CRM-M No.62732 of 2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:159570
[3]. Impugning the aforementioned order dated 28.09.2022 as well as FIR
No.24 dated 29.01.2020, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to
lockdown in the State and wrong date noted by counsel for the petitioner, she could
not appear before the Trial Court. He further points out that later, a settlement
came to be arrived at between the parties as petitioner discharged her liability by
paying the entire cheque amount in favour of complainant and in pursuance
thereof, the complaint under Section 138/142 of the N.I. Act, was withdrawn by
complainant and complaint file was ordered to be consigned to record room, vide
order dated 02.07.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratia.
[4]. Learned counsel further submits that once the main proceedings under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act Act have already come to an end, no useful purpose is
going to be served by continuing with the proceedings arising out of the FIR in
question. In support, he relies upon judgments of this Court, passed in CRM-M
No.16449 of 2018 titled as "Satish Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another"
and CRM-M No.30911 of 2021, titled as "Ram Kumar Rana vs. State of
Haryana and another".
[5]. Notice of motion to respondent No.1/State only. No notice is required
to be issued to respondent No.2 as she is left with no grievance, thereby no
prejudice caused to her. The matter is now between the Court and the petitioner
only.
[6]. On asking of the Court, Mr. Krishan K. Chahal, Addl. A.G., Haryana
accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Learned counsel opposes the prayer
made on behalf of petitioner while submitting that she was having knowledge of
pendency of proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as well as summoning
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159570
CRM-M No.62732 of 2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:159570
order, but she deliberately chose not to appear before the Trial Court resulting into
her declaration as proclaimed person followed by registration of FIR against her.
[7]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
paper book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
[8]. Once, the complaint under Section 138 of the 1881 Act, already
stands withdrawn by complainant on having received the entire cheque amount in
dispute, no useful purpose is going to be served by carrying on with the
proceedings arising out of the present FIR. Even otherwise, the case of petitioner is
fully covered with the judgments passed by this Court in Satish Kumar and Ram
Kumar Rana's cases (supra). Moreover, the petitioner has already been admitted to
bail vide order dated 10.07.2020 passed by the Trial Court.
[9]. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the present petition is
allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ratia declaring petitioner as proclaimed person is
set aside. The FIR No.24 dated 29.01.2020 registered under Section 174-A IPC at
Police Station City Ratia, District Fatehabad along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom is also quashed.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
December 13, 2023 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159570
3 of 3
