Mandeep Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1765 P&H

256        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                         CRM-M-6309-2021
                                         Date of decision: 27.01.2023

Mandeep Kaur                                                     ...........Petitioner

                                     versus

State of Punjab and another                                     .......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

Present:     Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Anup Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.

             Mr. Himanshu Puri, Advocate
             for respondent No.2.

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking

quashing of FIR No.60 dated 04.08.2019 under Section 174-A of IPC

registered at Police Station City Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur

(Annexure P-3).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the service

could not be effected upon the petitioner and for that reason, proceedings

under Section 174-A IPC were initiated and FIR No.60 dated 04.08.2019

was registered.

He further submits that the main dispute which was under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, out of which, proceedings

under Section 174-A of IPC have been emerged, had already been

concluded vide order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the learned JMIC,

Malerkotla as the matter had been compromised between the parties.

He submits that once the original proceedings have come to

an end with the compromise between the parties, therefore, the present

1 of 3

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 Rs.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

Singh versus State of Punjab' CRM-M-37155-2021 decided on 16.11.2021

also supports the present case.

2 of 3

Learned State counsel has not disputed the fact that the matter

has been compromised.

A perusal of order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the learned

JMIC, Malerkotla, makes it clear that the matter has been settled between

the parties and the main complaint had been dismissed as withdrawn.

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 FIR No.60 dated 04.08.2019 under Section 174-A of IPC

registered at Police Station City Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur

(Annexure P-3) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are

hereby quashed, on the basis of compromise, qua the petitioner only subject

to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs to be deposited with the Punjab and

Haryana High Court Lawyers' Welfare Fund within a period of one month

from the date of passing of this order.

                                               (NAMIT KUMAR)
27.01.2023                                        JUDGE
Neha

             Whether speaking/reasoned               :      Yes/No
             Whether reportable                      :      Yes/No




                                     3 of 3