Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deeraj Yadav Alias Dheeraj Yadav vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115172
2023:PHHC:115172
CRM-M-43275-2023 (O & M) ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-43275-2023 (O & M)
Date of decision:01.09.2023
Deeraj Yadav ...... Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana and ors. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. S.K. Daaria, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of
the impugned orders dated 04.08.2022 (P-14), order dated 16.01.2023
(P-17), order dated 10.02.2023 (P-18) passed by the Court of the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Gurugram vide which the petitioner had been
declared a proclaimed offender as well as quashing of the impugned FIR
No.1537 dated 19.06.2023 under Section 174-A IPC registered at Police
Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram and subsequent proceedings.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted against the
petitioner/accused at the instance of the complainant-firms. As the
petitioner/accused did not appear before the Trial Court to face trial, he was
declared as a proclaimed person as per the order dated 10.02.2023
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115172
2023:PHHC:115172
CRM-M-43275-2023 (O & M) ::2::
(Annexure P-18) pursuant to which an FIR No.1537 dated 19.06.2023 under
Section 174-A at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram came to be
registered against him.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused had entered into a
compromise with the complainant, pursuant to which, he (petitioner) had
made full and final payment to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant
through AR alongwith his counsel appeared before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram and suffered a statement that as a
compromise had been arrived at between the parties and had received full
and final payment, therefore, he did not want to proceed further with the
complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, the
complaint in question was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
19.07.2023 (Annexure P-20). 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 aforesaid FIR No. 1537
dated 19.06.2023 under Section 174-A IPC registered at Police Station
Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram as well as orders (Annexures P-14, P-17,
and P-18) respectively.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present
FIR came to be registered against the petitioner due to his non-appearance in
the aforementioned complaint. Thereafter, the matter was compromised
between the parties and the petitioner- accused had made the full and final
payment to the complainant. On 19.07.2023, the complainant through AR
alongwith his counsel got recorded his statement before the Trial Court that
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115172
2023:PHHC:115172
CRM-M-43275-2023 (O & M) ::3::
since the matter has been compromised between the parties and he had
received the entire payment, therefore, he did not want to proceed further
with the complaint and wanted to withdraw the same. Based on the said
statement, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
19.07.2023 (Annexure P-20).
5. The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and
has submitted that the FIR has been correctly registered.
6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned State counsel and has perused the paper-book.
7. From the above-said facts and circumstances, it is apparent
that the present FIR was registered in view of the fact that the petitioner was
declared as a proclaimed person in the proceeding under Section 138 of the
Act of 1881. The impugned complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881
itself has been withdrawn.
8. 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
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115172
2023:PHHC:115172
CRM-M-43275-2023 (O & M) ::4::
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
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."
9. 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
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115172
2023:PHHC:115172
CRM-M-43275-2023 (O & M) ::5::
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 for quashing of the FIR under Section 174-A IPC.
10. 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 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."
11. 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
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115172
2023:PHHC:115172
CRM-M-43275-2023 (O & M) ::6::
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".
12. In the present case the proceedings under Section 138 NI Act
have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the complaint under
Section 138 NI Act.
13. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and
impugned orders dated 04.08.2022 (P-14), order dated 16.01.2023 (P-17),
order dated 10.02.2023 (P-18) passed by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Gurugram vide which the petitioner has been declared a
proclaimed offender as well as the impugned FIR No.1537 dated 19.06.2023
under Section 174-A IPC registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District
Gurugram and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed
qua the petitioner.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
September 01, 2023
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115172
6 of 6
