Baldev Pahwa vs State Of Haryana
2024 Latest Caselaw 7908 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Baldev Pahwa vs State Of Haryana on 16 April, 2024

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051402




                                                              2024:PHHC:051402

CRM-M-46285-2023 (O & M)                                                      ::1::
(289)


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                      CRM-M-46285-2023 (O & M)
                      Date of decision:16.04.2024

Baldev Pahwa                                                       ...... Petitioner
           V/s

State of Haryana                                                   ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:     Mr. Manan Bhardwaj, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Rajiv Goel, DAG, Haryana.

                 *****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

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

FIR No.0489 dated 05.06.2019 under Section 174-A IPC registered at Police

Station Karnal City, District Karnal, Haryana and all other subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom.

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/Vijay Kumar Sethi. 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 13.05.2019

(Annexure P-2) pursuant to which an FIR under Section 174-A IPC had been

ordered to be registered against him in complaint bearing NACT No.2002 of

2018 pending before the JMIC, Karnal.

                                 1 of 6

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051402




                                                          2024:PHHC:051402

CRM-M-46285-2023 (O & M)                                                 ::2::

3. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused approached to the

complainant, compromised the matter and paid the entire due amount to the

complainant-Vijay Kumar Sethi. Thereafter, the complainant appeared

before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal and suffered a

statement that as the matter had been settled between the parties and the

amount in question had been received from the accused-petitioner, he did not

want to proceed further with the complaint under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act and withdrew the same. Therefore, the

complaint in question was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated

30.11.2019 (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 has been filed for quashing of aforesaid FIR No.0489

dated 05.06.2019 under Section 174-A IPC, Police Station Karnal City,

District Karnal, Haryana (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom.

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 payment of the

entire due amount to the complainant. On 30.11.2019, the complainant got

recorded his statement before the Trial Court that since the matter had been

compromised between the parties and he had received the entire due amount,

therefore, he did not want to proceed further with the complaint and wanted

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051402

2024:PHHC:051402

CRM-M-46285-2023 (O & M) ::3::

to withdraw the same. Based on the said statement, the complaint was

dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.11.2019 (Annexure P-2).

5. The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and

has submitted that the FIR had 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 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.

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051402

2024:PHHC:051402

CRM-M-46285-2023 (O & M) ::4::

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

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

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051402

2024:PHHC:051402

CRM-M-46285-2023 (O & M) ::5::

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

this Court in "Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar and another, CRM-M-

5878-2022 decided on 06.04.2022", "Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051402

2024:PHHC:051402

CRM-M-46285-2023 (O & M) ::6::

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 the

impugned FIR No.0489 dated 05.06.2019 under Section 174-A IPC

registered at Police Station Karnal City, District Karnal, Haryana and all

other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the

petitioner only.

( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE April 16, 2024 sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

6 of 6