Sachin Ahuja vs State Of Haryana
2023 Latest Caselaw 14969 P&H

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115855




CRM-M-43983-2023                 #1#                 2023:PHHC:115855

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH.


                                                          CRM-M-43983-2023

                                                 Date of Decision:-04.09.2023

Sachin Ahuja.

                                                                   ......Petitioner.
                                       Vs.

State of Haryana.

                                                                 ......Respondent.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:-   Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate for the Petitioner.

            Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, Assistant Advocate General,
            Haryana.

                                 ***

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)

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

the order dated 24.04.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Panipat in Complaint No.20 dated 03.01.2018 under

Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act titled as Dainik Bhaskar Vs.

Sachin Ahuja and FIR No.757 dated 18.09.2019 registered under Section

174-A of IPC at Police Station Panipat City, District Panipat, Haryana

(Annexure P-2) and all consequential proceedings arising out of the above

said FIR as the original complaint has already been dismissed as withdrawn

vide order dated 22.11.2019 (Annexure P-3).

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

liability, the petitioner/accused issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.20,000/-

dated 10.11.2017 in favour of the complainant. The said cheque came to be

dishonoured. Pursuant thereto, as no payment was made in lieu of the

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115855

CRM-M-43983-2023 #2# 2023:PHHC:115855

dishonoured cheque, a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act came to be instituted against the petitioner/accused and he

was summoned to face trial. Subsequently, he was declared a proclaimed

person vide order dated 24.04.2019 (Annexure P-1). Pursuant to the said

order, an FIR No.757 dated 18.09.2019 registered under Section 174-A of

IPC at Police Station Panipat City, District Panipat, Haryana came to be

registered against him.

3. Thereafter, a compromise was effected between the parties and

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

order dated 22.11.2019 (Annexure P-3). 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 24.04.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st

Class, Panipat and the consequential FIR (Annexure P-2) has been filed.

4. 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.

Thereafter, on 22.11.2019, the complainant in the Trial Court got recorded

his statement that he 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 22.11.2019 (P3).

5. Notice of motion.

6. On the asking of the Bench, Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG

Haryana accepts notice and has opposed the present petition and has

submitted that the FIR has been correctly registered.

7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has

perused the paper-book.

                                       2 of 5

                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115855




CRM-M-43983-2023                 #3#                 2023:PHHC:115855

8. 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 the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881. The impugned complaint itself has been withdrawn.

9. 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 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."

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115855

CRM-M-43983-2023 #4# 2023:PHHC:115855

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.

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

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115855

CRM-M-43983-2023 #5# 2023:PHHC:115855

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".

12. In the present case the proceedings under the Negotiable

Instruments Act have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the

complaint.

13. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the

order dated 24.04.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st

Class, Panipat in Complaint No.20 dated 03.01.2018 under Sections 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act titled as Dainik Bhaskar Vs. Sachin Ahuja

and FIR No.757 dated 18.09.2019 registered under Section 174-A of IPC at

Police Station Panipat City, District Panipat, Haryana (Annexure P-2)

along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

                                                ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
                                                     JUDGE
September 04, 2023
Vinay
        Whether speaking/reasoned                    Yes/No
        Whether reportable                           Yes/No




                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115855

                                       5 of 5