Ram Gopal vs State Of Haryana And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 19120 P&H

                             CRM-M-40466-2017                                            2023:PHHC:142922



                                      THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                   CHANDIGARH
                      (290)
                                                                                 CRM-M-40466-2017
                                                                         Date of Decision:-06.11.2023


                      RAM GOPAL
                                                                                        ......Petitioner
                                                              Versus

                      STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
                                                                                     ......Respondents

                      CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

                      Present:           Mr. Pankaj Mahavir Chauhan, Advocate
                                         for the petitioner.

                                         Mr. Rajiv Goel, DAG, Haryana.

                                None for respondent No.2.
                                     ***          ***
                      JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of

the order dated 01.11.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari in Complaint No.136

dated 04.02.2015 under Section 138 of the NI Act, whereby the petitioner

has been declared a proclaimed person and the consequential FIR No.38

dated 18.01.2017 (Annexure P-3) registered under Section 174-A at Police

Station Jagadhari, Yamuna Nagar.

The brief facts of the case are that in discharge of his legal

liability, the petitioner/accused issued a cheque No.426490 dated

10.12.2014 and cheque No.426492 dated 18.12.2014 for an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.4,50,000/-, respectively in favour of respondent No.2-

complainant. The said cheques came to be dishonoured. Pursuant thereto, as

no payment was made in lieu of the dishonoured cheques, a complaint

under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act came to be instituted KUSUM 2023.11.08 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD 2023:PHHC:142922

CRM-M-40466-2017

against the petitioner/accused and he was summoned to face trial.

Subsequently, he was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated

01.11.2016 (Annexure P-5).

Thereafter, a compromise was effected between the parties and

the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the

order dated 08.09.2017 (Annexure P-8). 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 the aforesaid order

dated 01.11.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st

Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari.

The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that he

had wrongly been declared a proclaimed person and on learning about the

same, the petitioner compromised the matter with the

complainant/respondent No.2. Thereafter, on 08.09.2017, the 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

08.09.2017.

The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and

has submitted that the proclamation order has rightly been passed.

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 KUSUM 2023.11.08 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD 2023:PHHC:142922

CRM-M-40466-2017

was declared as a proclaimed person 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

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 KUSUM 2023.11.08 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD 2023:PHHC:142922

CRM-M-40466-2017

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:-

"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 KUSUM 2023.11.08 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD 2023:PHHC:142922

CRM-M-40466-2017

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".

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 order

dated 01.11.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, KUSUM 2023.11.08 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD 2023:PHHC:142922

CRM-M-40466-2017

Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, FIR No.38 dated 18.01.2017 (Annexure P-3)

registered under Section 174-A at Police Station Jagadhari, Yamuna Nagar

along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom stands quashed.

                      06.11.2023                                     (JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
                      Kusum                                               JUDGE

                      Whether speaking/reasoned:-                                    Yes/No
                      Whether Reportable:-                                           Yes/No




KUSUM
2023.11.08 17:55
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD