Punjab-Haryana High Court
Roshni Devi @ Roshni Agarwal vs State Of Haryana on 6 August, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100904
CRM-M-24573-2024 -1-
115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-24573-2024 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 06.08.2024
ROSHNI DEVI @ ROSHNI AGARWAL
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Bhupander Ghanghas, Advocate
for the petitioner.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing of
FIR No.24, dated 09.05.2022, under Sections 174-A IPC, registered at Police
Station City Kanina, District Mahendergarh along with consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought quashing of the
said FIR on account of the fact that the petitioner was never served, as there
is no evidence with regard to the service upon the petitioner in the complaint
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the main complaint
stands withdrawn by the complainant, in view of the compromise affected
between the parties vide order dated 08.04.2024. A copy of the same has
been Annexed as Annexure P-3.
4. Since the main complaint has been dismissed as withdrawn, as
is evident from the perusal of aforesaid order passed by Sub-Divisional
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100904
Judicial Magistrate, Kanina and the offence between the petitioner and
complainant is personal in nature not against the society at large, who have
resolved their dispute, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the
proceedings in the instant FIR No.24, dated 09.05.2022, under Sections 174-
A IPC, registered at Police Station City Kanina, District Mahendergarh.
5. Since the Court is convinced on perusal of the pleadings and the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
was never served with the summoning orders or any bailable/non-bailable
warrants at any stage during the course of trial, the continuation of
proceedings in the instant FIR, in pursuance of the order dated 29.04.2022
passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kanina would tantamount to nothing
else, but an abuse of process of law, which will finally be turned to a futile
exercise.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
orders dated 20.07.2022 and 24.08.2022 respectively, passed by a coordinate
Bench of this Court in CRM-M-46062-2017, titled as "Jatin Dhawan and
another versus State of Haryana and another" and CRMM-12534-2022,
titled as "Krishan Kumar versus State of Haryana and another",
respectively wherein it has been held that once the main case is dismissed as
withdrawn, the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC shall
be an abuse of process of law.
7. He has also placed reliance upon the orders of this Court dated
12.12.2022 and 13.12.2022 passed in CRM-M-55634-2022 titled as "Jinder
Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another" and CRM-M-45051-2022 titled as
"Hari Singh Meena Vs. State of Haryana", respectively in this regard.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100904
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
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 174-A I.P.C. shall be abuse of
the process of court.
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. 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 of the
IPC shall be an abuse of the process of court.
10. In the present case, the complaint under Section 138 of the Act
of 1881 has been dismissed as withdrawn. Once the impugned complaint has
been dismissed as withdrawn and the accused stands acquitted, then the
continuance of the prosecution in the FIR under Section 174-A of IPC would
be an abuse of the process of Court.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100904
11. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, the
present petition is allowed and FIR No.24, dated 09.05.2022, under Sections
174-A IPC, registered at Police Station City Kanina, District Mahendergarh
along with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed
qua the petitioner.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
06.08.2024 JUDGE
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
