Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parwinder Kaur vs State Of Haryana And Another on 6 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141518
2023:PHHC:141518
151 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-55677-2023
Date of decision: 06.11.2023
Parwinder Kaur ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Ms. Pallavi Babbar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for
quashing of impugned order dated 07.12.2022 (Annexure P-2) vide which the
petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in a complaint case bearing No.
NACT/247/2020 dated 08.09.2020 under Sections 138 & 142 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC titled as 'Malak Singh Vs. Par-
winder Kaur.'
In this case, respondent No.2/complainant has entered into a com-
promise with the petitioner on 16.10.2023. The compromise deed is annexed
herewith as Annexure P-4.
At this stage, Mr. Himanshu Joshi, Advocate puts in appearance on
behalf of respondent No.2 and files his vakalatnama which is taken on record.
Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place in the file.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141518
2023:PHHC:141518
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 very fairly concedes that the
matter between the parties has been compromised. The learned trial Court has
recorded the statement of the complainant to the effect that the complainant
wishes to withdraw the complaint filed under Sections 138 & 142 of the Nego-
tiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC.
Learned trial Court vide order dated 16.09.2023 (Annexure P-3)
has ordered the dismissal of the complaint as withdrawn on the basis of the
statement suffered by respondent No.2/complainant.
The question which arises for consideration of this Court is
whether on account of withdrawal of the complaint under Sections 138 & 142
of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC on the basis of
compromise, the impugned order dated 07.12.2022 deserves to be quashed?
The stand of learned counsel representing the petitioner is that the
petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender in contravention of the pre-
scribed procedure under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The pe-
titioner was never served before the proclamation was issued under Section 82
Cr.P.C. Both the parties have settled the matter amicably which has resulted in
withdrawal of the complaint under Sections 138 & 142 of the Negotiable Instru-
ments Act read with Section 420 IPC. In the factual backdrop of this case,
undisputedly, once the substantive offence already stands settled between the
petitioner and respondent No.2, the impugned order dated 07.12.2022 would be
of no consequence.
Reliance in this regard has been placed upon various
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141518
2023:PHHC:141518
pronouncements on the issue involved in the present case. In CRM-M43813-
2018, Baldev Chand Bansal vs. State of Haryana and another, decided on
29.01.2019, Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another, 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, the Coordinate Benches of this
Court in identical circumstances, has held that since the main petition filed un-
der Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands withdrawn in view of
an amicable settlement between the parties, therefore, the impugned order dated
07.12.2022 under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. would be of no use.
A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vikas Gupta vs. State of
Haryana and others, while quashing the FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC
in CRM-M-19636-2018 decided on 01.08.2018 has observed the following:-
"The ultimate aim, objective and goal of a legal sys-
tem is to reconcile the social conflicts. Law is required only to
ensure that people do not have to fight with each other just to
protect their right to property, right to life and liberty and other
rights secured to them by the legal system. The civil disputes are
the conflicts between two parties, having lesser overtones for the
social order, social harmony or the society as such. Hence abso-
lute freedom is given to the parties to settle their disputes by
compromises, of course, coming with certain legal consequences
as well. However, the criminal disputes do not necessarily re-
strict themselves to only two parties to the dispute in terms of
their scope, consequences and effect. The criminal acts tend to
cast their effect and consequences even upon the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141518
2023:PHHC:141518
society at large. Therefore, the law prescribes punishment, se-
vere punishments and the extreme punishments, including death
penalty for criminal acts."
Learned counsel representing the State has not been able to contro-
vert the aforesaid facts and the position of law as laid down in the aforesaid
judgment.
This Court, while examining the facts and circumstances of the
present case, is of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Coordinate
Benches of this Court in consonance with law. Once the substantive offence has
been settled through compromise between the petitioner and respondent No.2,
the impugned order dated 07.12.2022 passed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. would
not sustain either.
Accordingly the present petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 07.12.2022 (Annexure P-2) along with all consequential proceedings aris-
ing therefrom, is hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
06.11.2023
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141518
4 of 4
