Devki Nandan vs State Of Ut Chandigarh And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 7909 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Devki Nandan vs State Of Ut Chandigarh And Anr on 16 April, 2024

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                     Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051384




                                                                 2024:PHHC:051384

CRM-M-24871-2023 (O & M)                                                          ::1::
(203)


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                         CRM-M-24871-2023 (O & M)
                         Date of decision:16.04.2024

Devki Nandan                                                          ...... Petitioner
              V/s

State of U.T., Chandigarh and anr.                                    ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:        Mr. Pardeep Kumar Kapila, Advocate,
                for the petitioner.

                Mr. Yashwant Singh Rathore, Addl.P.P.
                for U.T., Chandigarh,
                assisted by Ms. Sudha Singh, Advocate,
                and Mr. Yuvraj Singh Rathore, Advocate,
                for respondent No.1.

                Mr. Vineet Jalehar, Advocate,
                for the respondent No.2.

                    *****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

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

order dated 12.12.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist

Class, Chandigarh in complaint bearing No.9395 of 2021

CHCH03016269/2021 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

whereby the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed person and all

other consequential 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

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051384

2024:PHHC:051384

CRM-M-24871-2023 (O & M) ::2::

petitioner/accused at the instance of the complainant/respondent No.2-

Harinder Kaur. 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 12.12.2022 (Annexure P-2) in complaint No.9395 of 2021.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused approached to the

complainant and compromised the matter. Thereafter, Mr. Anshul Kukreja,

the learned counsel for the complainant appeared before the Court of

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh and suffered a statement that he

wished to withdraw the present case under the instruction of complainant.

Therefore, the complaint in question was dismissed as withdrawn vide order

dated 09.04.2024. A copy of the said order is taken on record as Mark 'A'.

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 impugned order dated 12.12.2022

(Annexure P-2) and the 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. On 09.04.2024, the complainant through her counsel got

recorded his statement before the Trial Court that 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

09.04.2024 (Mark 'A').

                               2 of 6

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051384




                                                          2024:PHHC:051384

CRM-M-24871-2023 (O & M)                                                ::3::

5. The learned State counsel for respondent No.1 has opposed the

present petition and has submitted that the FIR had been correctly registered.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted the

factum of compromise having been arrived at between the parties.

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

has perused the paper-book.

8. From the above-said facts and circumstances, it is apparent

that the impugned order (Annexure P-2) was passed due to non-appearance

of the petitioner 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.

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.

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051384

2024:PHHC:051384

CRM-M-24871-2023 (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."

10. 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:051384

2024:PHHC:051384

CRM-M-24871-2023 (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.

11. 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."

12. 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:051384

2024:PHHC:051384

CRM-M-24871-2023 (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".

13. 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.

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

impugned order dated 12.12.2022 (Annexure P-2) vide which the petitioner

has been declared a proclaimed person and all consequential proceedings

arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.

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

6 of 6