Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashwani vs State Of Haryana And Another on 7 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:143417
2023:PHHC:143417
125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-56140-2023
Date of decision: 07.11.2023
Ashwani ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Akun Sheemar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for
quashing of consequential proceedings of FIR No.1387 dated 17.09.2023 (An-
nexure P-3) under Section 174-A of IPC registered at Police Station Panipat
City, District Panipat, Haryana arising out of complaint case bearing No.
NACT/2696/2019 dated 30.11.2019 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instru-
ments Act, 1881 titled as 'Vinod Kumar Vs. Ashwani.'
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2
filed a complaint bearing No.NACT/2696/2019 dated 30.11.2019 under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in which proclamation proceedings were
initiated against the petitioner and he was declared proclaimed person vide or-
der dated 12.09.2023 and also proceedings under Section 174-A IPC were initi-
ated in FIR No.1387 dated 17.09.2023.
He further submits that the main dispute between parties was under Section
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:143417
2023:PHHC:143417
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, out of which, proceedings under Section
174-A of IPC have emerged, had already been concluded vide order dated
29.09.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat as the
matter had been compromised between the parties, in proof of which, affidavit
of the complainant/respondent No.2 is annexed with the present petition as
Annexure P-1.
The FIR dated 17.09.2023 was registered in pursuance of order dated
12.09.2023 passed by the learned JMFC, Panipat whereas, the complaint under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed as withdrawn be-
ing compromised on 29.09.2023 on the basis of the statement suffered by re-
spondent No.2/complainant.
The question which arises for consideration of this Court is
whether on account of withdrawal of the complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of compromise, the proceedings of FIR
No.1387 dated 17.09.2023 (Annexure P-3) under Section 174-A of IPC deserve
to be quashed?
The stand of learned counsel representing the petitioner is that the
petitioner has duly paid the amount involved in the cheque in question and both
the parties have settled the matter amicably which has resulted in withdrawal of
the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the fac-
tual backdrop of this case, undisputedly, once the substantive offence already
stands settled between the petitioner and respondent No.2, the proceedings un-
der Section 174-A of IPC would be of no consequence.
Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the various
pronouncements on the issue involved in the present case. In CRM-M-43813-
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:143417
2023:PHHC:143417
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 wherein, in identical
circumstances, the Coordinate Benches of this Court have held that since the
main petition filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands
withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties, therefore, the
proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC would not sustain either.
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
absolute freedom is given to the parties to settle their disputes
by compromises, of course, coming with certain legal con-
sequences as well. However, the criminal disputes do not
necessarily restrict 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
society at large. Therefore, the law prescribes punishment,
severe punishments and the extreme punishments, including
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:143417
2023:PHHC:143417
death penalty for criminal acts."
Learned counsel representing the State has not been able to
controvert 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 ad idem with the view taken by the Coordinate Benches of this
Court that once the substantive offence has been settled through compromise
between the petitioner and respondent No.2, the proceedings of FIR No.1387
dated 17.09.2023 (Annexure P-3) under Section 174-A of IPC would not sus-
tain either.
Accordingly the present petition is allowed. The proceedings of
FIR No.1387 dated 17.09.2023 (Annexure P-3) under Section 174-A of IPC
along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
07.11.2023
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:143417
4 of 4
