Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gopal Krishan vs State Of Haryana And Another on 20 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008573
2024:PHHC:008573
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
205 CRM M-57427 of 2023
Date of Decision: 20.01.2024
Gopal Krishan ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT
Present : Mr. Wazir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Banku, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C., with a prayer to quash the order dated 15.01.2018
(Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Panipat, whereby, the present petitioner has been declared as a
proclaimed offender in a complaint case No. 409/2017 dated
18.02.2017 titled as "M/s Krishna Textiles Vs. M/s Shubham
Textiles" and the FIR No. 87 dated 20.01.2018 under Section 174-A
of IPC Police Station Panipat City, District Panipat and all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a criminal
complaint titled as "M/s Krishna Textiles Vs. M/s Shubham
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008573
CRM M-57427 of 2023 2024:PHHC:008573 -2-
Textiles" (Annexure P-1) was filed against the petitioner and one
more accused on the ground that a cheque bearing No. 422996 dated
29.12.2016 for a sum of Rs. 1 lac drawn on Vijaya Bank, G.T. Road,
Panipat was allegedly issued by the petitioner for discharge of his
legal liability and on presentation by respondent No. 2, the said
cheque stood dishonoured. Consequently, the complaint
(Annexure P-1) was filed against the present petitioner. Learned
counsel further contends that the petitioner was never served in the
complaint (Annexure P-1) and had no knowledge with regard to the
pendency of the present case. Consequently, without following the
due process of law and by completely overlooking the provisions of
Section 482 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure P-3),
passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat, the
petitioner was ordered to be declared as proclaimed person and the
Court had ordered for registration of the FIR under Section 174-A
IPC against the petitioner. Consequent to the said order, one FIR
No. 87 dated 20.01.2018 under Section 174-A IPC, Police Station
Panipat City, District Panipat, was ordered to be registered against the
present petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner
came to know about the pendency of the complaint (Annexure P-1)
against him after several years and on coming to know about the
pendency of the complaint, he immediately, compromised the matter
with respondent No. 2. The respondent No.2/complainant appeared
before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat and stated that he did
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008573
CRM M-57427 of 2023 2024:PHHC:008573 -3-
not want to proceed further with the complaint and the same be
withdrawn. Consequently, on 16.11.2022, vide order annexure P-6,
the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat, permitted the respondent
No. 2 to withdraw the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that since the complaint (Annexure P-1) already stood
withdrawn, the continuation of the proceedings in pursuance to the
FIR No. 87 dated 20.01.2018 under Section 174-A IPC registered at
Police Station Panipat City, District Panipat would be an abuse of
process of Court and the same may be ordered to be quashed by this
Court.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits
that the petitioner had not appeared before the trial Court and has
been rightly declared to be proclaimed person. Still further,
Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent
No. 2 submits that respondent No. 2 has settled all the disputes with
the present petitioner and the respondent No. 2 has already withdrawn
the criminal complaint (Annexure P-1) filed by him. He further
submits that the respondent No. 2 had no objection in case the order
(Annexure P-3) passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat
and the FIR No. 87 dated 20.01.2018 under Section 174-A IPC
registered at Police Station Panipat City, District Panipat (Annexure
P-4) are ordered to be quashed by this Court.
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008573
CRM M-57427 of 2023 2024:PHHC:008573 -4-
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
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008573
CRM M-57427 of 2023 2024:PHHC:008573 -5-
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 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
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008573
CRM M-57427 of 2023 2024:PHHC:008573 -6-
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."
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 15.01.2018
(Annexure P-3) and the FIR No. 87 dated 20.01.2018 under Section
174-A IPC registered at Police Station Panipat City, District Panipat
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".
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008573
CRM M-57427 of 2023 2024:PHHC:008573 -7-
8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and
impugned order dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure P-3) and FIR No. 87
dated 20.01.2018 under Section 174-A IPC registered at Police
Station Panipat City, District Panipat (Annexure P-4) alongwith all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby ordered to be
quashed.
20.01.2024 ( N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008573
7 of 7
