Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nitin Jain vs State Of Haryana And Another on 24 April, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055421
2024:PHHC:055421
CRM-M-19811-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(127) CRM-M-19811-2024
Date of decision: 24.04.2024
NITIN JAIN & ANOTHER
.... Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, Asstt. A.G., Haryana.
Ms. Diksha Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the
FIR No.37 dated 07.10.2018 (Annexure P-04) registered under Section 174-A of
IPC at Police Station BPTP, District Faridabad, which was registered consequent
to the order 13.10.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Faridabad declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person in a complaint case
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The brief facts of the case are that in discharge of his legal liability,
the petitioner/accused issued a cheque No.530017 dated 22.08.2016 for an amount
of Rs.15,00,000/- in favour of respondent No.2-complainant. The said cheque
came to be dishonoured. Pursuant thereto, as no payment was made in lieu of the
dishonoured cheque, a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
came to be instituted against the petitioner/accused and he was summoned to face
Trial. Subsequently, he was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated
13.10.2018 (Annexure P-3).
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055421
2024:PHHC:055421
Thereafter, a compromise was effected between the parties and the
complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the order dated
07.03.2024 (Annexure P-13). In view of the dismissal of the complaint under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of the compromise, the
present petition for quashing of aforesaid FIR No.37 dated 07.10.2018 (Annexure
P-04) under Section 174-A of IPC Police Station BPTP, District Faridabad came to
be registered.
The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that he had
wrongly been declared a proclaimed person and on learning about the same, the
petitioner compromised the matter with the complainant. Thereafter, on
07.03.2024, the counsel for complainant in the Trial Court got recorded his
statement that as per his instructions, the complainant did not want to proceed
further with the present complaint and wanted to withdraw the same. Based on the
said statement, the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn on
07.03.2024 (Annexure P-13).
The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and has
submitted that the FIR has rightly been registered.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper-book.
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 the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The impugned complaint itself has been withdrawn.
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
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055421
2024:PHHC:055421
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."
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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055421
2024:PHHC:055421
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.
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."
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
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055421
2024:PHHC:055421
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".
In the present case the proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments
Act have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the complaint.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and subject to a
deposit of Rs.50,000/- as costs with the Sadhana Society for the Mentally
Handicapped, Near Housing Board Chowk, Raen Basera Building, Manimajra,
Sector-13, Chandigarh, the FIR No.37 dated 07.10.2018 (Annexure P-04)
registered under Section 174-A of IPC at Police Station BPTP, District Faridabad
along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
24.04.2024 JUDGE
JITESH
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
