Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gagandeep Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 1 June, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080218
2023:PHHC:080218
CRM-M-28742 of 2023 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-28742 of 2023
Date of Decision:01.06.2023.
Gagandeep Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Gurveer Singh Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Viney Phogat, D.A.G., Haryana.
*****
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No.0292 dated
22.11.2022, registered under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at
Police Station Sector-9, Ambala City, District Ambala (Annexure P-1) alongwith
all consequential proceedings, arisen therefrom.
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complaint under Section 138 of the Act has been withdrawn vide order dated
13.05.2023 (Annexure P-5). It has been submitted that under the circumstances,
the present FIR deserves to be quashed.
4. A complaint under Section 138 of the Act was filed by ICICI Bank
Ltd. Branch Office Aggarsain Chowk near Rajan Sarees Ambala City, District
Ambala through its authorized representative against petitioner-Gagandeep Singh.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080218
2023:PHHC:080218
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the complaint under Section 138 of the Act has been withdrawn vide order dated
13.05.2023 (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 coordinate Bench after relying upon various
judgments, had observed that once the accused persons had
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080218
2023:PHHC:080218
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 and FIR No.0292
dated 22.11.2022, registered under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
at Police Station Sector-9, Ambala City, District Ambala (Annexure P-1), 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:080218
3 of 3
