Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasvir Bhatti vs State Of Punjab And Another on 3 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045385
CRM M-29573 of 2023 2024:PHHC:045385 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
277 CRM M-29573 of 2023
Date of Decision: 03.04.2024
Jasvir Bhatti ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT
Present : Mr. K. S. Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. M.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Anantdeep Singh, 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 order dated 06.11.2019 passed
by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka (Annexure P-1), in
complaint bearing No. NACT 276/2017 titled as "Parveen Marry
Vs. Jasveer Bhatti", under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'), whereby, the
petitioner was declared to be a "proclaimed person".
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
respondent No. 2 had filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of
the Act (Annexure P-2) against the petitioner regarding the dishonour
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045385
of the cheque bearing No. 243506 dated 17.01.2017 amounting to
Rs. 1,00,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Cantonment Branch, Ambala.
In fact, the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings against him
and never received any summons/warrants from the Court.
Ultimately, vide the impugned order dated 06.11.2019, the petitioner
was declared as a proclaimed person in the present case, without
following the due process of law. Thereafter, the warrants of
attachment of the property of the accused was issued and the police
started raiding the house of the petitioner. At that stage, the petitioner
came to know that he had been declared as a proclaimed person in the
present case. Thereafter, the petitioner immediately approached the
respondent and the matter was compromised between the parties for a
sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Even, a compromise deed dated 20.02.2023
(Annexure P-3) was executed between the parties and it clearly shows
that the entire payment was made by the petitioner to the respondent
and the respondent/complainant did not want to continue the criminal
complaint filed by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
contends that since the main case, i.e., complaint (Annexure P-2) has
been compromised between the parties, the continuation of the
proceedings in pursuance of the impugned order dated 06.11.2019
(Annexure P-1) would be an abuse of the process of the law.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent/complainant also submits that during the pendency
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045385
of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, the matter has been
compromised between the parties and as per the compromise
(Annexure P-3), the respondent had received the entire amount from
the present petitioner. He further submits that the respondent will
have no objection in case the petitioner is acquitted in the present case
as the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
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
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045385
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."
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.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045385
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:-
"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 matter has already been
compromised between the parties. Consequently, the continuation of
the proceedings in pursuance of the impugned order dated 06.11.2019
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045385
(Annexure P-1) would be an abuse of the process of the law. 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 06.11.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka alongwith all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom is hereby ordered to be quashed.
03.04.2024 ( N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
