Anil Dhiman vs State Of Punjab And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 8746 P&H

                                                            Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080133




                                                                   2023:PHHC:080133
CRM-M-28812 of 2023             1


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH
                                     CRM-M-28812 of 2023
                                     Date of Decision:01.06.2023.
Anil Dhiman
                                                 ....Petitioner
                           Versus
State of Punjab and another
                                                                     ...... Respondents
CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present:     Mr. Kunal Jain, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Addl.AG., Punjab.

             Mr. Satvir Singh, Advocates
             for respondent no.2.
                    *****
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of impugned order dated

03.09.2022 (Annexure P-2), vide which the petitioner was declared a proclaimed

offender in Complaint Case No. COMA/662/2017, dated 05.09.2017, under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') (Annexure P-1) and

FIR No.272 dated 23.11.2022, registered under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860, at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala (Annexure P-3) alongwith

all consequential proceedings, arisen therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated

08.05.2023 (Annexure P-4) entered into between the parties.

2. Initially, the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court as a result of

which he was declared a proclaimed person. Subsequently the present FIR was

registered against him.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

complaint under Section 138 of the Act has been withdrawn vide order dated

15.03.2023 (Annexure P-5). It has been submitted that under the circumstances, the

present FIR deserves to be quashed.

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080133

2023:PHHC:080133

4. A complaint under Section 138 of the Act was filed by M/s Aneja

Trading Agencies, Show Room No. 4 & 5, opposite Rotary Club, Rajpura, through its

authorized proprietor Satish Kumar against petitioner-Anil Dhiman. It was alleged

that the cheque issued by the present petitioner in discharge of his liability had been

dishonoured.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner did not initially appear before the trial Court

as a result of which he was declared a proclaimed person and the present FIR under

Section 174-A IPC was registered. A perusal of the record shows that the complaint

under Section 138 of the Act has been withdrawn vide order dated 15.03.2023

(Annexure P-5).

6. The question would be as to whether on account of the acquittal of the

petitioner in the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, the present FIR deserves to

be quashed.

7. Going by the facts of the case, it is clear that even with the continuation

of the FIR, no useful purpose will be served and the interest of justice demands that

the same should be quashed. A Coordinate Bench of this Court also ceased of the

same question relying upon the judgment in the case of Ashok Madan vs. State of

Haryana and another 2020 (4) RCR (Criminal) 87 wherein it had been held that

since the FIR under Section 174-A IPC had been registered only on account of

absence from the proceedings in the main case which had been subsequently

regularized by the Court while granting bail to the petitioner, the default stood

condoned and, therefore, the FIR deserved to be quashed. A Coordinate Bench of this

Court also took the same view in the case of Rahul Dureja and another vs. State of

Punjab 2022 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 248 and held as under:-

"A perusal of the above judgment would show that where FIR has been registered under Section 174-A of the IPC in view of the order passed in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, while declaring the petitioners as proclaimed persons in the said proceedings, a

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080133

2023:PHHC:080133

coordinate Bench after relying upon various judgments, had observed that once the accused persons had appeared in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and had been granted the concession of bail, then the effect of order declaring the accused person as proclaimed person would dissipate and the ground for registration of the FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC would no longer exist and thus, any proceeding under Section 174-A of the IPC would be an abuse of the process of the Court."

8. A similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Benches of this Court

in Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another CRM-M-32465-2017,

decided on 13.09.2017 and Deepak versus State of Haryana and another CRM-M-

14623-2021, decided on 17.02.2022

9. This Court agrees with the view taken by the Coordinate Benches of this

Court in the aforesaid judgments.

10. Learned counsel representing the State has not been able to dispute the

aforesaid facts and the position of law as laid down in the aforesaid judgments.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order

dated 03.09.2022 (Annexure P-2) and FIR No.272 dated 23.11.2022, registered under

Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station City Rajpura, District

Patiala (Annexure P-3), along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom

are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.

                                                  (VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
01.06.2023                                              JUDGE
Rekha

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




                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080133

                                         3 of 3