Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pankaj Dayal vs State Of Haryana And Another on 6 June, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081724
CRM-M-29847-2023 1
114(6) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-29847-2023
Date of Decision: June 06, 2023
PANKAJ DAYAL ...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present:- Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate and
Ms. Taanvi Dhull, Advocate
for the petitioner.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.(Oral)
1. The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has come before this
Court to quash order dated 25.01.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Panchkula as well as FIR No.67 dated 10.02.2023, under Section 174-A
IPC registered at Police Station Sector-7, Panchkula, District Panchkula and all
the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very out-set submitted that
matter between the parties have been resolved by making payment qua the
cheque in question which is pending for encashment. To await the encashment
and to ensure that the cheque is not dishonoured again, the matter has been
adjourned to 05.07.2023 on which date there is possibility of disposal of the said
complaint in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. On the
strength of the aforesaid assertion, quashing of order dated 25.01.2023 passed
by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panchkula as well as FIR No.67 dated
10.02.2023 registered under Section 174-A of IPC at Police Station Sector-7 has
been sought for.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081724
3. Notice of motion.
4. On advance notice, Mr. G.S. Chinna, A.A.G. Haryana, who is
present in the Court accepts notice on behalf of the State and does not
controvert the factual aspect as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner to
the effect that matter has been compromised.
5. Heard.
6. From the record, it is apparent that the present FIR in question has
been registered on account of the petitioner having been declared as proclaimed
person vide order dated 25.01.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Panchkula, in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, which were
instituted in pursuance of the complaint filed by Abhishek Gupta Karta of HUF
Subhash Gupta and sons. However, as per submissions made by the counsel for
the petitioner the matter has been settled between the parties and the complaint
in question would be withdrawn.
7. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-43813-2018 titled as
"Baldev Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and another" decided on
29.01.2019 has quashed the FIR under Section 174-A IPC holding 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 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 process of law.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081724
xxx xxx xxx
In views of the same, I find merit in the present petition and accordingly,
present petition is allowed and the impurnged order dated 24.10.2016 passed
by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Panchkula as well as FIR No.64 dated
05.02.2017 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."
8. A perusal of the above judgment would show that in a similar case
where the FIR had been registered under Section 174-A of the IPC in
proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, while declaring the petitioner
therein as proclaimed offender, this High Court having relied upon after relying
upon various judgments, observed that once the main petition under Section 138
of the Act of 1881 stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between
the parties, the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC is
nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The said aspect was one of the main
consdieration for allowing the petition and setting aside the order declaring the
petitioner therein as proclaimed person as well as quashing of the FIR under
Section 174-A of the IPC.
9. In another case titled as Ashok Madan vs. State of Haryana and
another" reported as 2020 (4) RCR (Criminal) 87 also it has been held as
under: "No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued
that the offence under Section 174A IPC 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 the 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. In
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081724
such circumstances, continuation of proceedings under Section 174A IPC shall
be abuse of the process of Court.
10. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.446 dated
21.08.2017, registered under Section 174A IPC at Police Station Kotwali,
District Faridabad, as well as consequential proceedings shall stand quashed."
Recently in another case in CRM-M-52319-2021 as well on 15.12.2021 titled
as Sharvan Kumar Singh @ Sarvan Singh versus State of Haryana our High
Court quashed the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC on the ground that in
the main complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 were withdrawn after
a compromise between the parties.
11. In the instant case in fact the parties have settled the dispute
amicable involved in the complaint. The case in hand stands at much better
footing where actually the dispute has been brought to an end and the parties are
at peace. The continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC will not
only spark the dispute already resolved but will also consume the precious time
of the Courts of law in dealing with the proceedings unwarrantedly. This Court
deems and is of the considered opinion that the utmost endeavour shall be to
bring an end to the dispute wherein it seems that ends of justice can be met
rather than continuing the proceedings rather than mere technicalities despite
the fact that the issue involved in the main complaint has finally come to an end.
12. In view of the discussion as recorded hereinabove and the case law
adjudicated upon the identical issue in the aforesaid judgments, further
proceedings in the FIR in question would only amount to be an abuse of the
process of law. Accordingly, order dated 25.01.2023 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula as well as FIR No.67 dated 10.02.2023, under
Section 174-A IPC registered at Police Station Sector-7, Panchkula, District
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081724
Panchkula and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby
quashed.
13. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
June 06, 2023
himanshu
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081724
5 of 5
