Sulekha Rani vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 7910 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sulekha Rani vs State Of Punjab on 16 April, 2024

                                   Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051064




CRM M-4225 of 2024                         2024:PHHC:051064         1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH


207                                         CRM M-4225 of 2024
                                            Date of Decision: 16.04.2024


Sulekha Rani                                                   ...Petitioner
                                   Vs.
State of Punjab and another                                  ...Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT


Present :   Mr. Rhythem Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

            Mr. M.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.

            Mr. Vishal Sharda, 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 26.10.2021 passed

by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Abohar (Annexure P-2), in

complaint bearing No.1000 dated 21.09.2020 titled as "Akashdeep

Vs. Sulekha Rani" and the FIR No. 157 dated 20.06.2022 under

Section 174-A IPC registered at Police Station City-I, Abohar District

Fazilka and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the

present case a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') was filed

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051064

by respondent No. 2/complainant against him on account of dishonour

of a cheque bearing No. 098983 dated 26.07.2020 for a sum of

Rs. 2,40,000/-, which was issued by the petitioner in favour of the

complainant. Learned counsel further contends that after filing of the

criminal complaint (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was ordered to be

summoned through bailable warrants and, thereafter, non-bailable

warrants were also issued against him. However, the petitioner was

never served in the present case. Ultimately, vide order dated

26.10.2021 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was declared as proclaimed

person by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Abohar. In

compliance of the order (Annexure P-2) passed by the trial Court, the

SHO Police Station City-I Abohar had ordered registration of FIR,

i.e., FIR No. 157 dated 20.06.2022 under Section 174-A (Annexure

P-3) against the petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that after

the registration of the case, the petitioner came to know about the

pendency of the FIR against him and he had immediately

compromised the matter with respondent No. 2. Later on, in

compliance of the settlement/agreement between the parties, the main

complaint was withdrawn by respondent No. 2/complainant vide

order dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P-4). Learned counsel for

petitioner further contends that since the main matter, i.e., complaint

under Section 138 of the Act has been compromised between the

parties and the complaint stands withdrawn by respondent

No.2/complainant, the continuation of the proceedings under Section

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051064

174-A of IPC would be an abuse of process of the law. He further

contends that even the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed

person, without following the process of law.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently

opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had intentionally evaded

the process of law and was not appearing before the trial Court for a

very long period. Consequently, after following the process of law, the

petitioner was rightly declared as proclaimed person and as a

necessary consequence, FIR No. 157 dated 20.06.2022 under Section

174-A IPC (Annexure P-3) was ordered to be registered against him

at Police Station City-I, Abohar District Fazilka. He prays that in view

of the fact that the petitioner had evaded the process of law for such a

long period, the present petition merits dismissal by this Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2

submits that he has no objection in case the present petition is allowed

by this Court as the main case has already been compromised

between the parties and the respondent No. 2 has already withdrawn

the complaint from the trial Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051064

6. 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

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051064

Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, are hereby quashed."

7. 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.

8. 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

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051064

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."

9. 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 26.10.2021

(Annexure P-2) 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".

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

impugned order dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed by the

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051064

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Abohar and FIR No. 157 dated

20.06.2022 under Section 174-A IPC registered at Police Station City-

I, Abohar District Fazilka (Annexure P-3) alongwith all subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom are hereby ordered to be quashed.

16.04.2024                                ( N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana                                      JUDGE

                  Whether reasoned/speaking         :       Yes/No
                  Whether reportable                :       Yes/No




                                 7 of 7