Vipul Gupta vs State Of Punjab And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 5602 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Vipul Gupta vs State Of Punjab And Another on 13 March, 2024

                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036411




CRM M-22770 of 2023                        2024:PHHC:036411          1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH


263                                          CRM M-22770 of 2023
                                             Date of Decision: 13.03.2024


Vipul Gupta                                                    ...Petitioner
                                   Vs.
State of Punjab and another                                  ...Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT


Present :   Mr. L.S. Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

            Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.

            Mr. A.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the 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 17.12.2022 passed

by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa (Annexure P-5), in complaint

bearing No. NACT 111/2019 titled as "Gurvinder Singh Vs. Vipul

Gupta", under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881

(hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'), whereby, the petitioner was

declared to be a "proclaimed offender" and also to quash the FIR

No. 276 dated 20.12.2022 under Section 174-A of IPC (Annexure

P-6) registered at Police Station City-2, Mansa, District Mansa and

all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

1 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036411

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

Gurvinder Singh-respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint under

Section 138 of the Act, i.e., NACT 111/2019, titled as "Gurvinder

Singh Vs. Vipul Gupta", in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Mansa. Vide order dated 11.03.2019 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner

was ordered to be summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Mansa. Thereafter, the case was listed for appearance of the petitioner

for 22.04.2019. On 22.04.2019, bailable warrants were issued by the

Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa. However, the petitioner

was not served. Again, on 07.01.2020, non-bailable warrants were

ordered to be issued against the petitioner. Thereafter, vide order

dated 17.12.2022, the petitioner was ordered to be declared as

'proclaimed offender'. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends

that from the various orders passed by the trial Court, it is established

that summons/warrants were never served on the petitioner. Even, the

petitioner was not aware of the pendency of the complaint before the

trial Court and he could not appear before the trial Court. Later on,

FIR No. 276 dated 20.12.2022 under Section 174-A of IPC (Annexure

P-6) was ordered to be registered at Police Station City-2, Mansa,

District Mansa against petitioner and the police started raiding his

house. Consequently, the petitioner came to know about the pendency

of the proceedings against him and he compromised the case with

respondent No. 2. On 02.03.2023, the respondent No. 2 made a

statement that the matter had been settled with the accused and he

2 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036411

wanted to withdraw the complaint. Consequently, vide order dated

02.03.2023 (Annexure P-7), the respondent No. 2 was permitted to

withdraw the complaint. Learned counsel further contends that the

very purpose of the impugned FIR was to procure the presence of the

petitioner and since the main matter has already been compromised

between the parties, the proceedings arising out of the impugned

order dated 17.12.2022 (Annexure P-5) and the FIR No. 276 dated

20.12.2022 under Section 174-A of IPC (Annexure P-6) are liable to

be quashed. Apart from that, learned counsel further contends that the

petitioner has been wrongly declared as a "proclaimed offender'.

3. 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

3 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036411

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."

4. 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.

4 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036411

5. 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."

6. 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 17.12.2022

5 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036411

(Annexure P-5) and FIR No. 276 dated 20.12.2022 under Section

174-A of IPC (Annexure P-6) registered at Police Station City-2,

Mansa, District Mansa 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".

7. Still further, from a reading of the provisions of Section

82 of Cr.P.C., it is evident that all the persons, who are absconding or

concealing themselves so that the warrants may not be executed,

cannot be declared as proclaimed offender. Only where a

proclamation published under sub-section (1) is in respect of a person

accused of an offence punishable under the offences mentioned in

Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. and such person fails to appear at the specific

place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may

pronounce such person as proclaimed offender. However, if the

proclamation is respecting the offence, other than the offences

mentioned in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C., then such persons, who are

absconding and concealing themselves to affect the execution of

warrants of arrest, could be declared as proclaimed persons. From a

plain reading of the provisions of Section 82 of Cr.P.C., it is evident

that there is a distinction between a proclaimed person and a

6 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036411

proclaimed offender. The said distinction is further reinforced by the

provisions of Section 174-A IPC. As per Section 174-A IPC, if a

person is declared as "proclaimed person" then he shall be punished

with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years and or

fine or both and where a declaration has been made in sub-section 4

of Section 82 Cr.P.C. pronouncing him as a "proclaimed offender", he

shall be punished with the imprisonment for a term which may extend

to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Thus, from the scheme

of Code itself, it is evident that the words "Proclaimed Person" and

"Proclaimed Offender" have different meanings and different

punishments have been provided under the statue for the said

violation of law.

8. From the above referred discussion, it is evident that the

trial Court had wrongly declared the petitioner as a 'proclaimed

offender' and he could only be declared as a 'proclaimed person' at

the most. Even, on this count also, the impugned order dated

17.12.2022 (Annexure P-5) and FIR No. 276 dated 20.12.2022 under

Section 174-A of IPC (Annexure P-6) registered at Police Station

City-2, Mansa, District Mansa, are liable to be quashed.

9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and

impugned order dated 17.12.2022 (Annexure P-5) and the FIR

No. 276 dated 20.12.2022 under Section 174-A of IPC registered at

Police Station City-2, Mansa, District Mansa (Annexure P-6)

7 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036411

alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby

ordered to be quashed.

13.03.2024                                ( N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana                                      JUDGE

                  Whether reasoned/speaking         :        Yes/No
                  Whether reportable                :        Yes/No




                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036411

                                 8 of 8