Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inder Raj vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 2 April, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043677
2024:PHHC:043677
CRM-M-65148-2023
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(295)
CRM-M-65148-2023
Date of Decision:-02.04.2024
INDER RAJ
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Bhavdeep Singh Mamli, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rupinder Singh Jhand, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
None for respondent No.2.
*** ***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of
the order dated 14.06.2017 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari in Complaint
No.NIA/565/2016 under Section 138 of the NI Act, whereby the petitioner
has been declared a proclaimed person and the consequential FIR No.1033
dated 08.07.2017 (Annexure P-1) under Section 174-A IPC, at Police
Station Jagadhari City.
2. The brief facts of the case are that in discharge of his legal
liability, the petitioner/accused issued a cheque bearing No.496356 dated
05.11.2015 for an amount of Rs.10,000/- in favour of respondent No.2-
complainanat. The said cheque came to be dishonoured. Pursuant thereto,
as no payment was made in lieu of the dishonoured cheque, a complaint
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act came to be instituted
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043677
2024:PHHC:043677
CRM-M-65148-2023
against the petitioner/accused and he was summoned to face trial.
Subsequently, he was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated
14.06.2017 (Annexure P-2).
Thereafter, a compromise was effected between the parties and
the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the
order dated 15.12.2017 (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 14.06.2017 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari has been filed.
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/
respondent No.2. Thereafter, on 15.12.2017, the counsel for respondent
No.2-complainant in the Trial Court got recorded his statement that as per
his instructions, the complainant 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
15.12.2017 (Annexure P-3).
The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and
has submitted that the proclamation order has rightly been passed.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
has perused the paper-book.
From the above-said facts and circumstances, it is apparent
that the present FIR was registered in view of the fact that the petitioner
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043677
2024:PHHC:043677
CRM-M-65148-2023
was declared as a proclaimed person in the proceeding under the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881. The impugned complaint itself has been withdrawn.
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
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043677
2024:PHHC:043677
CRM-M-65148-2023
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."
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.
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
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043677
2024:PHHC:043677
CRM-M-65148-2023
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."
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 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".
In the present case the proceedings under the Negotiable
Instruments Act have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the
complaint.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the
order 14.06.2017 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043677
2024:PHHC:043677
CRM-M-65148-2023
Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, FIR No.1033 dated 08.07.2017
(Annexure P-1) under Section 174-A IPC, at Police Station Jagadhari City
along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom stands quashed.
02.04.2024 (JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
Jitesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether Reportable:- Yes/No
6 of 6
