Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parminderjeet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 29 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058604
CRM-M-64826-2023 -1 2024:PHHC:058604
302 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-64826-2023
Date of Decision:29.04.2024
Parminderjeet Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and Anr. ...Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present: Mr. A.S Khosa, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepender Singh,Addl. A.G, Punjab.
Mr. Harpal, Advocate for
Mr. Sukhpal Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.
P.C with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 01.07.2023
(Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Pathankot, whereby the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed person in a
complaint case No. NACT-541-2020, titled as "Ravi Kumar Sharma
Vs.Parminderjeet Singh", under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act").
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent had
filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the "Act" against the present
petitioner. After the preliminary evidence, the petitioner was summoned by the
Trial Court to appear as an accused to face the trial. However, the summons
were never served on the present petitioner and the petitioner had no knowledge
with regard to the pendency of the complaint, pending against him. Thereafter,
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058604
CRM-M-64826-2023 -2 2024:PHHC:058604
the warrants were also issued for the service of the present petitioner, but again
the petitioner was never served by following the due process of law. Ultimately,
vide the impugned order dated 01.07.2023, the petitioner was ordered to be
declared as a proclaimed person by the Trial Court. In fact, after passing of the
impugned order, the petitioner came to know about the pendency of the
criminal complaint against him and he immediately approached the respondent
and entered into a compromise with him. Even a compromise deed dated
29.11.2023 (Annexure P-3) was signed between the parties in the presence of
the witnesses and thereafter, the complaint was withdrawn by the respondent
from the Trial Court on 09.12.2023 and the Trial Court had passed an order
(Annexure P-1) in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
since the main case has already been withdrawn, the proceedings out of
impugned order (Annexure P-2) would be an abuse of the process of the Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
No.2/complainant submits that the main case has already been compromised,
consequently, respondent No.2 has no objection, in case the proceedings
arising out of impugned order dated 01.07.2023 (Annexure P-2) are ordered to
be quashed 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
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058604
CRM-M-64826-2023 -3 2024:PHHC:058604
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
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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058604
CRM-M-64826-2023 -4 2024:PHHC:058604
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."
7. In the present case also, the main case has already been withdrawn
by the complainant. Consequently, the continuation of the proceedings arising
out of impugned order dated 01.07.2023 (Annexure P-2) 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 @
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058604
CRM-M-64826-2023 -5 2024:PHHC:058604
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 01.07.2023 (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom are hereby ordered to be quashed.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
29.04.2024 JUDGE
hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
