Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rishi Arora And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 30 January, 2023
CRM-M-27283-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(257A)
CRM-M-27283-2021
Date of Decision:-30.01.2023
RISHI ARORA & OTHERS
......Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Deepam Raghava, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Asstt. A.G., Haryana.
*** ***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No.0488, dated 02.09.2018 (Annexure P-1) registered under Section
174-A of IPC at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram which was
registered in consequence to the order dated 01.08.2017 passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gurugram declaring the petitioner as a
proclaimed person in a complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
The brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted against the
petitioner/accused at the instance of respondent No.2-M/s Felicia Realcon
India Pvt. Ltd. The petitioners and respondent No.2 had business relations
with each other. It was agreed between the petitioners and respondent No.2
to develop a project of a high-tech township which had been developed by
1 of 6
CRM-M-27283-2021
M/s UP Infraestate Pvt. Ltd. But there was some dispute between the
petitioners and respondent No.2 in the year 2015 and some cheques were
drawn in favour of respondent No.2 which were dishonoured leading to the
summoning of the petitioners. As the petitioners/accused did not appear
before the Trial Court to face trial, they were declared proclaimed persons
as per the order dated 01.08.2017 pursuant to which an FIR No.0488, dated
02.09.2018 (Annexure P-1) registered under Section 174-A of IPC at Police
Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram (Annexure P-1) came to be
instituted against them.
Subsequently, a compromise was effected between the parties
and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the
order dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure P-3). In view of the dismissal of the
complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of
the compromise, the present petition for quashing of aforesaid FIR
No.0488, dated 02.09.2018 (Annexure P-1) has been filed.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they were
never served in the said proceedings and they learnt about the said
proceedings only after the police raided their house, after being declared as
a proclaimed persons. On learning about the same, the petitioners
compromised the matter with the complainant/respondent No.2. Thereafter,
on 24.02.2020, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant in the
Trial Court got recorded his statement that as per his instructions, the
complainant did not want to proceed further with the present complaint and
wanted to withdraw the same. Based on the said statement, the complaint
was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn on 24.02.2020 (P-3).
The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and
2 of 6
CRM-M-27283-2021
has submitted that the FIR has been correctly registered.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
has perused the paper-book.
From the above-said facts and circumstances, it is apparent
that the present FIR was registered in view of the fact that the petitioner
were declared as a proclaimed persons in the proceeding under the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The impugned complaint itself has been
withdrawn.
A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-43813-2018
titled as "Baldev Chand Bansal vs. State of Haryana and another",
decided on 29.01.2019 has held as under:-
"Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.64
dated 15.02.2017 filed under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal
Code registered at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula and all
other subsequent proceedings arising thereof as well as order
dated 24.10.2016 passed by the trial Court vide which a
direction was issued to register the aforesaid FIR.
xxx xxx xxx
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
3 of 6
CRM-M-27283-2021
138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable
settlement between the parties, therefore, continuation of
proceedings under Section 174A of IPC shall be nothing but an
abuse of the process of law.
xxx xxx xxx
In view of the same, I find merit in the present petition
and accordingly, present petition is allowed and the impugned
order dated 24.10.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Panchkula as well as FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017
registered under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code at
Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula and all other subsequent
proceedings arising thereof, are hereby quashed."
A perusal of the above judgment would show that in a similar
case where the FIR had been registered under Section 174-A IPC in view of
the order passed in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, while
declaring the petitioner therein as a proclaimed offender, a co-ordinate
Bench after relying upon various judgments observed that once the main
petition under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an
amicable settlement between the parties, the continuation of proceedings
under Section 174-A IPC is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The
said aspect was one of the main considerations for allowing the petition and
setting aside the order declaring the petitioner therein as a proclaimed
person as well as quashing of the FIR under Section 174-A IPC.
Another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled as
"Ashok Madan vs. State of Haryana and another" reported as 2020(4)
RCR (Criminal) 87 has also held as under:-
4 of 6
CRM-M-27283-2021
"No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondent has
vehemently argued that the offence under Section 174A I.P.C. is
independent of the main case, therefore, merely because the
main case has been dismissed for want of prosecution, the
present petition cannot be allowed, however, keeping in view
the fact that the present FIR was registered only on account of
absence from the proceedings in the main case which had been
subsequently regularised by the court while granting bail to the
petitioner, the default stood condoned. In such circumstances,
continuation of proceedings under Section 174A I.P.C. Shall be
abuse of the process of court.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.446 dated
21.08.2017, registered under Section 174A I.P.C. At Police
Station Kotwali, District Faridabad, as well as consequential
proceedings shall stand quashed."
A perusal of the relevant extract of the above judgment would
show that where the main case was dismissed for want of prosecution, it
was observed that the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC
shall be an abuse of the process of court. A similar view has been expressed
by this Court in "Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar and another, CRM-M-
5878-2022 decided on 06.04.2022", "Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar and
another, CRM-M-5755-2022 decided on 06.04.2022" and "Varinder Kumar
@ Virender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and another, CRM-M-42551-
2021 decided on 19.04.2022".
5 of 6
CRM-M-27283-2021
In the present case the proceedings under the Negotiable
Instruments Act have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the
complaint.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the
FIR No.0488, dated 02.09.2018 (Annexure P-1) registered under Section
174-A of IPC at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram which was
registered in consequent to the order dated 01.08.2017 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gurugram declaring the petitioners as
proclaimed persons in a complaint case under Sections 138/141 Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 is hereby quashed subject to the petitioners
depositing a sum of Rs.25,000/- as costs with the Chandi Kusht Ashram
Society, Shiv Ram Mandir (Leprosy Colony), Sector 47, Opp. 3 BRD
Gate, Chandigarh.
30.01.2023 (JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
Jitesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether Reportable:- Yes/No
6 of 6
