Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anwar Nahal And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 18 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052124
CRM-M-5209 of 2022 1 2024:PHHC:052124
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
255B CRM-M-5209 of 2022
DATE OF DECISION :- 18.04.2024
Anwar Nahal and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:- Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Ravisha Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
Mr. Yuvraj Singh Tiwana, AAG, Punjab.
***
SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
seeking quashing of FIR No.24 dated 15.03.2019 registered at Police Station
Women Cell, Jalandhar City under Section 174-A of IPC and all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Vide order of even date i.e. 18.04.2024 passed in CRM-M-
5808-2022, the FIR stands quashed in view of the compromise effected
between the parties and the compromise petition stands allowed.
3. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of this Court
passed in CRM-M-51049-2019 titled as 'Mohmmad Hanif Attari vs. State of
Haryana', decided on 06.07.2023; relevant whereof reads as under:-
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052124
CRM-M-5209 of 2022 2 2024:PHHC:052124
"3. In view the fact that after the principle proceedings in which
the petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender stand
concluded, the question would arise is: 'whether in the given
circumstances, proceedings under Section 174A of the IPC
pursuant to FIR No.425 dated 17th of November, 2017 can be
allowed to continue.
4. The question framed ibid is no more res integra and already
stands answered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-
M-43813-2018 titled as "Baldev Chand Bansal v. State of
Haryana and another" vide order dated 29.01.2019, which held
as under:
"Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.64
dated 15.02.2017 filed under Section 174A 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."
XX XXX XXXX
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
decisions rendered by this Court in "Vikas Sharma v.
Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another (supra), 2017, (3)
L.A.R.584, Microqual Techno Limited and others v. State
of Haryana and another, 2015 (32) RCR (Criminal) 790
and "Rajneesh Khanna v. 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.
XX XXX XXXX
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052124
CRM-M-5209 of 2022 3 2024:PHHC:052124
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 174A of the
Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula
and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, are
hereby quashed."
5. Same is the view of another Co-ordinate Bench in the
"Ashok Madaan v. State of Haryana and another" reported as
2020 (4) RCR (Criminal) 87, wherein it has been held that:
"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 LP.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.PC. at Police
Station Kotwali, District Faridabad, as well as consequential
proceedings shall stand quashed."
4. Keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the
case, no useful purpose would be served by continuation of the proceedings
in the impugned FIR No.24 dated 15.03.2019 registered at Police Station
Women Cell, Jalandhar City under Section 174-A of IPC. Accordingly, the
impugned FIR and the impugned order dated 27.01.2021 passed by the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052124
CRM-M-5209 of 2022 4 2024:PHHC:052124
Judicial Magistrate First Class-3, Jalandhar (Annexure P-9) are hereby
quashed qua the petitioners.
5. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
18.04.2024
P.Singh
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
