Punjab-Haryana High Court
Purshotam Dass vs Punjab National Bank on 15 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038023
CRM-M-35115-2023 - 1-
2024:PHHC:038023
252 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-35115-2023
Date of Decision: 15.03.2024
Purshotam Dass ...Petitioner
vs.
Punjab National Bank ...Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present : Mr. M.S Kathuria, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sahil Soni, Advocate for
Mr.Tarun Dhingra, Advocate
for the respondent.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.
P.C with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 18.01.2023
(Annexure P-5) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Kurukshetra, titled as "Punjab National Bank Vs. Purshotam Dass", whereby
the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a complaint
No.365/2020 titled as "Punjab National Bank Vs. Purshotam Dass" under
Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to
as the "Act") was filed against the petitioner for dishonour of cheque bearing
No.134161 dated 03.01.2020 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on Punjab
National Bank, Khanpur Kotian. Vide the order dated 04.03.2020
(Annexure P-2), the petitioner was ordered to be summoned under Section 138
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038023
CRM-M-35115-2023 - 2-
2024:PHHC:038023
of the "Act". After the summoning, the petitioner was ordered to be summoned
by way of bailable warrants/non-bailable warrants. However, from the orders
(Annexures P-3 and P-4) it was evident that the petitioner was never served and
the warrants were received back unexecuted. Ultimately, vide the order dated
18.01.2023 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person.
Learned counsel further contends that now the matter has been amicably settled
before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court vide
compromise/settlement deed dated 06.09.2023. Even the respondent had agreed
to withdraw the complaint (Annexure P-1), from the Court of Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that in
view of the compromise/settlement the respondent/complainant has withdrawn
the main complaint from the Court of Sher Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Kurukshetra on 15.03.2024. Learned counsel further contends that the very
purpose of the impugned order dated 18.01.2023 (Annexure P-5) was to
procure the presence of the petitioner and since the main matter already stands
compromised between the parties and the complaint has been withdrawn by the
respondent/complainant, the impugned order dated 18.01.2023 (Annexure P-5)
is liable to be quashed by this Court.
3. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent submits that the respondent had already received an amount as per
the settlement/agreement from the present petitioner and the respondent
/complainant has no objection in case, the impugned order is set aside by this
Court. Learned counsel further prayed that the present petition may be allowed
and the impugned order may be quashed as the matter has been amicably
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038023
CRM-M-35115-2023 - 3-
2024:PHHC:038023
resolved between the parties.
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 Indian Penal Code at Police Station
Sector-5, Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings arising
thereof, are hereby quashed."
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038023
CRM-M-35115-2023 - 4-
2024:PHHC:038023
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.
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
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038023
CRM-M-35115-2023 - 5-
2024:PHHC:038023
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 18.01.2023 (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 18.01.2023 (Annexure P-5) and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom are hereby ordered to be quashed.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
15.03.2024 JUDGE
hitesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
