Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 22 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054134
CRM-M-42611-2023 (O&M) -1 2024:PHHC:054134
128+280 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-42611-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision:22.04.2024
Rakesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ...Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present: Mr. Ravi Malhotra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. M.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J.
CRM-41028-2023
1. Application is allowed as prayed for, subject to just all
exceptions.
2. Annexure P-7 is taken on record.
Main case
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.
P.C with a prayer to quash FIR No. 50 dated 28.03.2023 under Section 174-A
of IPC, registered at Police Station Navi Baradari, District Police
Commissionerate, Jalandhar (Annexure P-4) and the order dated 21.01.2023
(Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar,
whereby the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person and all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case,
a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054134
CRM-M-42611-2023 (O&M) -2 2024:PHHC:054134
referred to as the "Act") was filed against the present petitioner for dishonour of
cheque No.014926 dated 18.06.2020 for a sum of Rs.3,10,000/-, which was
drawn at Union Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Jalandhar. Learned counsel
for the petitioner next contends that during the course of hearing of the case
before the trial Court, the summons/warrants were issued against the present
petitioner, however, the same were never served on him. Consequently, vide
order dated 21.01.2023 (Annexure P-3), he was wrongly declared as a
proclaimed person, without following the due process of law and orders were
issued to sent the intimation to concerned SHO for initiating the proceedings
under Section 174-A of IPC. Learned counsel further contends that in view of
the order (Annexure P-3), the police registered an FIR No. 50 dated 28.03.2023
under Section 174-A of IPC, Police Station Navi Baradari, District Police
Commissionerate Jalandhar (Annexure P-4) against the present petitioner.
Learned counsel further submits that when the petitioner came to know about
the registration of the FIR, he had compromised the matter with the
complainant and the complainant had withdrawn the main complaint on
09.09.2023 (Annexure P-7). Learned counsel further submits that the impugned
order was passed by the Trial Court just to procure the presence of the
petitioner in a criminal trial, no purpose will be served with the continuation of
the proceedings as the main complaint has already been withdrawn by the
complainant.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner
had intentionally evading the process of law and did not appear before the Trial
Court. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner has not been
able to point out any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054134
CRM-M-42611-2023 (O&M) -3 2024:PHHC:054134
and the petition deserves to be dismissed by this Court.
4. 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 Indian Penal Code at Police Station
Sector-5, Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings arising
thereof, are hereby quashed."
5. A perusal of the above judgment would show that in a similar case
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054134
CRM-M-42611-2023 (O&M) -4 2024:PHHC:054134
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.
6. 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 regularized 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."
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054134
CRM-M-42611-2023 (O&M) -5 2024:PHHC:054134
7. In the present case also, the main case has already been withdrawn
by the complainant. Consequently, the continuation of the proceedings arising
from the impugned order dated 21.01.2023 (Annexure P-3) and FIR No. 50
dated 28.03.2023 under Section 174-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Navi
Baradari, District Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar (Annexure P-4) would be
an abuse of process of the Court. 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" .
8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated 21.01.2023 (Annexure P-3) and FIR No. 50 dated
28.03.2023 under Section 174-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Navi
Baradari, District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar (Annexure P-4) and all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby ordered to be quashed.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
22.04.2024 JUDGE
hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
