Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manvinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 25 January, 2023
117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-4036-2023
Date of decision: 25.01.2023
Manvinder Singh ...........Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and another .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Ms. Rajvinder Kaur Sohal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated
22.08.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned JMIC, Rupnagar,
whereby, the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed person with
further direction to the SHO to register an FIR against the petitioner and
seeking quashing of FIR No.058 dated 24.11.2022 under Section 174-A of
IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Morinda, District Rupnagar
(Annexure P-4).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has
been compromised between the parties vide compromise deed dated
29.11.2022 (Annexure P-8) and even an application dated 11.01.2023
(Annexure P-9) for withdrawal of the case filed by the complainant-
Kamaljeet has been moved and on his application, statement of
complainant has been rendered to this effect by the trial Court on
11.01.2023, however, the case has been adjourned for 11.02.2023 and to be
put up before the Lok Adalat. He further submits that no proper service has
been effected upon the petitioner under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
He also submits that once the original proceedings have
come to an end with the compromise between the parties, on the basis of
1 of 4
statement made by the complainant before the trial Court duly mentinoned
in order dated 12.01.2023, therefore, the present proceedings under Section
174-A of IPC arising out of the original proceedings should also come to
an end. To support his contention he relies upon the judgment of this
Court passed in 'Aditya Goyal vs. State of Haryana' CRM-M-11269-2019
decided on 07.05.2019.
In the above said judgment, this Court has quashed the
proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC where the main proceedings have
already been concluded. The relevant portion from Aditya Goyal's case
(Supra) is as under:-
"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 174-A of IPC shall be nothing but an abuse of the process of
law.
Learned State counsel, on instructions from the Investigating
Officer, has not disputed the factual position.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the
present petition.
Since the main complaint filed by the complainant under Section
138 of the N.I. Act itself stands dismissed as withdrawn by the trial
Court keeping in view the fact that petitioner has cleared the entire dues
and on the direction of this Court, the petitioner has already appeared
before the Investigating Officer and has also deposited the cost of
`10,000/- with the Illaqa Magistrate, this Court is of the opinion that
continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC shall be an abuse
of process of law.
Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstance of the case
and also in view of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, this
petition is allowed and order dated 03.12.2018 (Annexure P-1), passed
by the trial Court in Criminal Complaint No. 1624/2017 dated
12.09.2017, filed under Section 138 of the N. I. Act, vide which, the
petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person as well as other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom including FIR No. 66 dated
01.02.2019, registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station
Jagadhri City, District Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P-2) are hereby
quashed."
To the same effect, another judgment passed in 'Lakhwinder
2 of 4
Singh versus State of Punjab' CRM-M-37155-2021 decided on 16.11.2021
also supports the present case.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab puts in appearance and
accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Vicky Sharma, Advocate puts in appearance and accepts
notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and filed vakalatnama in the Court
today and the same is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2 in no
unequivocal terms submit that matter has been compromised between the
parties and statement for withdrawal of complaint has been made before the
trial Court.
Learned State counsel has also not disputed the fact that the
matter has been compromised as per record.
A perusal of order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, makes it clear that the matter has
been settled between the parties and the complaint has been withdrawn by
the complainant. Consequently, no fruitful purpose would be served in
continuing the proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC.
Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned
JMIC, Rupnagar and FIR No.058 dated 24.11.2022 under Section 174-A of
IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Morinda, District Rupnagar
(Annexure P-4) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are
hereby quashed, on the basis of compromise, qua the petitioner only subject
to payment of Rs.8,000/- as costs to be deposited with the Punjab and
3 of 4
Haryana High Court Lawyers' Welfare Fund within a period of one month
from the date of passing of this order.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
25.01.2023 JUDGE
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
