Vinod Kumar Swami vs State Of Haryana And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 6421 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Vinod Kumar Swami vs State Of Haryana And Another on 21 March, 2024

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041748



CRM-52578-2023 in/and                          -1-          2024:PHHC:041748
CRM-M-13314-2022

124+261
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                          CRM-52578-2023 in/and
                          CRM-M-13314-2022
                          Date of Decision:21.03.2024

Vinod Kumar Swami                                                     ...Petitioner
                                                Vs.
State of Haryana and another                                       ...Respondents

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

Present:     Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Karan Garg, AAG, Haryana.

             Mr. Mayank Yadav, Advocate
             for respondent No.2.

N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral)

CRM-52578-2023

1. This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for

placing on record copy of affidavit dated 11.11.2022 as Annexure P-6, passed

by Lok Adalat Judge, Narunaul, whereby the petitioner was acquitted.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application the same is allowed as

prayed for subject to all just exceptions.

CRM-M-13314-2022

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the FIR No.657 dated

30.09.2021 registered under Section 174-A of IPC, at Police Station City

Narnaul, District Mahendergarh (Anneuxre P-1) and order dated 24.09.2013,

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041748

CRM-52578-2023 in/and -2- 2024:PHHC:041748 CRM-M-13314-2022

passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Narnaul (Anneuxre P-2),

whereby the petitioner was declared to be the proclaimed offender.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a complaint under

Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter to be

referred as 'the Act') filed by respondent No.2/complainant against the present

petitioner. In the said complaint, the present petitioner was ordered to be

summoned to face the trial under Sections 138 and 142 of the Act. Even the trial

Court had issued summons/warrants against the present petitioner. However, the

said summons/warrants were never served on the present petitioner due to the

incorrect address and the present petitioner was declared to be proclaimed

offender and he came to know about the pendency of the proceedings after a

gap of 08 years. He further contends that present petitoner has been wrongly

declared proclaimed offender as the case filed under Sections 138 and 142 of

the Act a person may be declared as proclaimed person only. During the

pendency of the present petition, before this Court, the parties have amicably

settled their dispute before the Lok Adalat, Narnaul and the appeal filed by the

petitioner before the Appellate Court was accepted vide order dated 11.11.2022

(Annexure P-6) and judgment of conviction dated 16.09.2022 and order of

sentence dated 17.09.2022 were ordered to be set aside. Thus, no purpose would

be served by keeping the proceedings in pursuance of the FIR No.657 dated

30.09.2021 registered under Section 174-A of IPC, at Police Station City

Narnaul, District Mahendergarh (Anneuxre P-1) and order dated 24.09.2013,

passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Narnaul (Anneuxre P-2),

alive.

                                     2 of 7

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041748



CRM-52578-2023 in/and                         -3-          2024:PHHC:041748
CRM-M-13314-2022

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed

the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground

that the present petitioner had intentionally not appeared before the trial Court

and has been rightly declared as a proclaimed offender, whereas, the matter has

been amicably resolved between the parties before the Lok Adalat, Narnaul and

the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that he has no

objection in case the FIR No.657 dated 30.09.2021 registered under Section

174-A of IPC, at Police Station City Narnaul, District Mahendergarh (Anneuxre

P-1) and order dated 24.09.2013, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st

Class, Narnaul (Anneuxre P-2), and all subsequent proceedings are ordered to

be quashed 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.

                                     3 of 7

                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041748



CRM-52578-2023 in/and                          -4-          2024:PHHC:041748
CRM-M-13314-2022

             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."

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 Sections 138 and 142 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

Sections 138 and 142 of the Act stands amicable settled 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 7

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041748



CRM-52578-2023 in/and                         -5-          2024:PHHC:041748
CRM-M-13314-2022

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, the parties have compromised the matter and

appeal preferred by the petitioner has been accepted by the Lok Adalat,

Narnaul. Consequently, the continuation with the FIR No.657 dated 30.09.2021

registered under Section 174-A of IPC, at Police Station City Narnaul, District

Mahendergarh (Anneuxre P-1) and order dated 24.09.2013, passed by the

Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Narnaul (Anneuxre P-2), 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. 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

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041748

CRM-52578-2023 in/and -6- 2024:PHHC:041748 CRM-M-13314-2022

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 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.

9. 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 24.09.2013 (Anneuxre P-2), passed by the Learned

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Narnaul and FIR No.657 dated 30.09.2021

registered under Section 174-A of IPC, at Police Station City Narnaul, District

Mahendergarh (Anneuxre P-1) are liable to be quashed.

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

No.657 dated 30.09.2021 registered under Section 174-A of IPC, at Police

Station City Narnaul, District Mahendergarh (Anneuxre P-1) and order dated

24.09.2013, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Narnaul

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041748

CRM-52578-2023 in/and -7- 2024:PHHC:041748 CRM-M-13314-2022

(Anneuxre P-2), alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are

hereby ordered to be quashed.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

21.03.2024                                     (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
M.Sikka                                              JUDGE


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




                                      7 of 7