Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhrigunath Prasad vs State Of Haryana And Another on 5 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031916
CRM-M-58337-2023 - 1-
2024:PHHC:031916
277 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-58337-2023
Date of Decision: 05.03.2024
Bhrigunath Prasad ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana and Anr. ...Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present : Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Karan Garg, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Sudesh Sahi, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.
P.C with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 26.08.2022 (Annexure
P-4) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, whereby the
petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed person in a complaint case titled as
"Thakar Chemicals Limited Vs. Prasad Beej Bhandar and Anr." and also to
quash FIR No. 787 dated 15.09.2022, under Section 174-A of IPC, Police
Station City Sirsa (Annexure P-5) and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.2
had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against the present petitioner. Vide the
summoning order dated 01.12.2021, the petitioner was ordered to be summoned
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031916
CRM-M-58337-2023 - 2-
2024:PHHC:031916
by the Court of Judicial Magistate Ist Class, Sirsa. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further contends that after passing of the summoning order, the
summons were sent to the petitioner and the same were never received by the
petitioner. Thereafter, the warrants were ordered to be issued against the
petitioner, however, again the petitioner was not served. Ultimately, vide order
dated 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner was ordered to be declared as a
proclaimed person. Further, on the directions of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Sirsa, one FIR No.787 dated 15.09.2022, under Section 174-A of IPC, Police
Station City, Sirsa (Annexure P-5) was ordered to be registered against the
present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the
petitioner had no knowledge with regard to the pendency of the case at any
point of time nor he was served either with the summons or with the bailable
warrants. On coming to know about the impugned order and registration of the
FIR, the petitioner immediately contacted the respondent No.2/ complainant and
compromised the matter with him. Consequently, the complaint was ordered to
be withdrawn from the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa on
26.11.2022 (Annexure P-9). Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends
that since the complaint under Section 138 of the "Act" has already been
withdrawn by the complainant, the impugned order (Annexure P-4) and the FIR
(Annexure P-5) would be an abuse of process of the Court. Learned counsel
further contends that the very purpose of impugned order (Annexure P-4) was
to procure the presence of the petitioner and since the main matter already
stands compromised between the parties, the proceedings arising out of
impugned order(Annexure P-4) and the FIR (Annexure P-5) are liable to be
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031916
CRM-M-58337-2023 - 3-
2024:PHHC:031916
quashed by this Court.
3. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 and the same is
taken on record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2
submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties and he has
no objection, in case the present petition is ordered to be allowed 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,
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031916
CRM-M-58337-2023 - 4-
2024:PHHC:031916
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
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.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031916
CRM-M-58337-2023 - 5-
2024:PHHC:031916
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 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-4) and FIR No. 787
dated 15.09.2022, under Section 174-A of IPC, Police Station City Sirsa
(Annexure P-5) 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 impugned
order dated 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-4) and the FIR No. 787 dated 15.09.2022
under Section 174-A IPC, registered at Police Station City, Sirsa (Annexure
P-5) alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby ordered
to be quashed.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
05.03.2024 JUDGE
hitesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031916
5 of 5
