Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjod Singh @ Manjot Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 15 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144524
2023:PHHC:144524
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
273 CRM M-28820 of 2023
Date of Decision: 15.11.2023
Manjod Singh @ Manjot Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT
Present : Mr. Harsh Mehla, Advocate for
Mr. Sunny Tyagi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Gurcharan Singh Rai, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated
27.11.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate
1st Class, Panipat, whereby, the present petitioner has been declared to
be a proclaimed person in a complaint case CIS No. NACT-1096
dated 29.04.2017 titled as "HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Manoj Singh" . A
further prayer has been made to quash the FIR No. 419 dated
26.03.2018 under Section 174-A IPC registered at Police Station
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144524
CRM M-28820 of 2023 2023:PHHC:144524 -2-
Panipat City, District Panipat (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 2015, the
petitioner approached the HDFC Bank (respondent No. 2) for two
wheeler loan facility and a loan agreement was executed between the
petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant and the petitioner had
issued a security cheque to respondent No. 2. In the year 2017, due to
some financial problems, the petitioner failed to pay the few
installments to the respondent/bank and the respondent/bank
presented the cheque of Rs. 10,770/-, which was dishonored due to
"insufficient funds" in the account of the petitioner. Later on, the
respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the
Act') against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Panipat. After the issuance of the process, the petitioner could
not appear before the Court and was declared to be a proclaimed
person vide order dated 27.11.2017 (Annexure P-1). Later on, a FIR
No. 419 dated 26.03.2018 under Section 174-A IPC Police Station
Panipat City, District Panipat (Annexure P-2) was ordered to be
registered against the present petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner had paid whole amount till 31.08.2017 to the respondent
No. 2 and this fact could not be disclosed by the respondent No. 2 to
the trial Court. Learned counsel contends that even the name of the
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144524
CRM M-28820 of 2023 2023:PHHC:144524 -3-
petitioner was wrongly mentioned as Manoj Singh instead of Manjod
Singh. Consequently, the petitioner did not get any notice from the
trial Court and could not be served in the present case. However, he
had settled the loan account with the respondent/bank and had made
whole payment till 31.08.2017. The petitioner came to know about the
registration of the FIR (Annexure P-2) and he immediately contacted
the bank and requested the bank to withdraw the complaint against
him. Consequently, on 04.05.2022, the respondent No. 2 had
withdrawn the complaint under Section 138 of the Act and the
petitioner was ordered to be acquitted by the trial Court. Learned
counsel for the petitioner contends that since the main offence has
already been compromised between the parties, the continuation of
proceedings arising from FIR No. 419 dated 26.03.2018 under
Section 174-A IPC registered at Police Station Panipat City, District
Panipat (Annexure P-2) would be an abuse of process of law and are
liable to be quashed by this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2
submits that he has no objection in case the the impugned order dated
27.11.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate
1st Class, Panipat and the FIR No. 419 dated 26.03.2018 under
Section 174-A IPC registered at Police Station Panipat City, District
Panipat (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom are quashed by this Court.
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144524
CRM M-28820 of 2023 2023:PHHC:144524 -4-
5. 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.
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144524
CRM M-28820 of 2023 2023:PHHC:144524 -5-
xxx xxx xxx
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."
6. 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.
7. 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:-
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144524
CRM M-28820 of 2023 2023:PHHC:144524 -6-
"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 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."
8. In the present case also, the proceedings under the
Negotiable Instrument Act have already been settled and vide order
dated 04.05.2022 the complaint has already been withdrawn by the
complainant. Consequently, the continuation of the proceedings
arising from the impugned order dated 27.11.2017 (Annexure P-1)
and the FIR No. 419 dated 26.03.2018 under Section 174-A IPC,
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144524
CRM M-28820 of 2023 2023:PHHC:144524 -7-
registered at Police Station Panipat City, District Panipat (Annexure
P-2) would be an abuse of process of the Court. Similar observations
have been made by this Court in the matter of "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".
9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and
impugned order dated 27.11.2017 (Annexure P-1) and the FIR
No. 419 dated 26.03.2018 under Section 174-A IPC, registered at
Police Station Panipat City, District Panipat (Annexure P-2)
alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby
ordered to be quashed.
15.11.2023 ( N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144524
7 of 7
