Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatinder Paul Singh Alias Jatinder Pal ... vs State Of Punjab And Another on 19 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163255
2023:PHHC:163255
CRM-M-51386-2023 1
207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-51386-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 19.12.2023
JATINDER PAUL SINGH @ JATINDER PAL SINGH
...Petitioner
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Ms. P.S. Punia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG Punjab.
Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for
quashing of order dated 03.03.2017 (Annexure P-1) and FIR No. 0255 dated
08.12.2022 registered under Section 174-A of Indian Penal Code registered
at Police Station City Jagraon, District Ludhiana Rural (Annexure P-2) in
complaint No. COMP/153/2014 and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the complainant/respondent No.2
filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(in short 'the Act') against the petitioner before the learned Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon. It is further contended that the petitioner
borrowed a sum of Rs. 60,000/- from the complainant/respondent No. 2 and
agreed to return the loan amount with interest by way of installments. The
petitioner in discharge of his liability, issued a cheque of Rs. 80,000/- dated
29.07.2013 drawn at Axis Bank Tehsil Road Jagraon in favour of the
complainant but the said cheque was returned back for the reason "Account
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163255
2023:PHHC:163255
closed". On the basis of said allegations, the complaint was filed before the
trial Court and the concerned Court ordered the petitioner/accused to be
summoned but due to unavoidable circumstances the petitioner could not
appear before the trial Court and learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Jagraon declared the petitioner as Proclaimed Person vide the impugned
order dated 03.03.2017 (Annexure P-1) 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 a
compromise has been effected between the parties. Copy of the Panchayati
Compromise is annexed as Annexure P-3. It is further contended that on the
basis of aforesaid Panchayati Compromise, the petitioner-accused and
respondent No. 2-complainant have recorded their statements before the
trial Court on 24.08.2023 to the effect that the petitioner has made the full
and final payment of the cheque amount to the complainant-Harjit Singh
and the complaint has already been withdrawn on the basis of compromise.
But, vide order dated 03.03.2017 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner has already
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 concluded vide order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the learned
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163255
2023:PHHC:163255
Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon in which inter alia stated that
complainant has made a statement in writing before the trial Court that
accused has paid the entire cheque amount along with interest 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.255 dated
08.12.2022 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 Section 174-A of IPC would not sustain
either.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163255
2023:PHHC:163255
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
IPCin 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. Learned State counsel has filed status report dated 19.12.2023 by
way of affidavit of Satvinder Singh Virk, PPS, DSP Jagraon, District
Ludhiana (Rural) but has not been able to controvert the aforesaid facts and
the position of law as laid down in the aforesaid judgment.
10. This Court, while examining the facts and circumstances of the
present case, is ad idem with the view taken by the Coordinate Benches of
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163255
2023:PHHC:163255
this Court that once the substantive offence has been settled through
compromise between the petitioner and respondent No.2, the proceedings of
FIR No. 255 dated 08.12.2022 under Section 174-A of IPC would not
sustain either.
11. Accordingly the present petition is allowed. The order dated
03.03.2017 (Annexure P-1) vide which the petitioner has been declared as
proclaimed person and the FIR No. 0255 dated 08.12.2022 registered under
Section 174-A of IPC registered at Police Station Jagraon District Ludhiana
Rural (Annexure P-2) 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, Ludhiana for
wasting precious time of the Court.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
19.12.2023 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163255
5 of 5
