Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another on 2 May, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
CRM-M-60015-2022 -1-
2024:PHHC:060749
278 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-60015-2022
Date of decision: May 02, 2024
Sanjeev Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SHEKHAWAT
Present: Mr. Dhrup Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana.
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of
the impugned order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1 st
Class, Hisar declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person in a complaint
case bearing No.NACT/528/2021 titled as "Ravinder Kumar Vs. Sanjeev
Kumar" under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. The brief facts of the case are that in discharge of his legal
liability, the petitioner/accused issued a cheque No.384113 dated 24.12.2020
for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of complainant. The said cheque
came to be dishonoured. Pursuant thereto, as no payment was made in lieu
of the dishonoured cheque, a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act came to be instituted against the petitioner/accused and he
was summoned to face trial. Subsequently, he was declared a proclaimed
person vide order dated 07.09.2022.
integrity of this document Thereafter, a compromise was effected between the parties and
the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the
order dated 13.05.2023 (taken on record as Mark 'A'). In view of the
dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
on the basis of the compromise, the present petition for quashing of the
impugned order dated 07.09.2022 has been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that he
had wrongly been declared a proclaimed person and on learning about the
same, the petitioner compromised the matter with the complainant.
Thereafter, on 28.04.2023, the counsel for complainant in the Trial Court got
recorded his statement that as per his instructions, the complainant did not
want to proceed further with the present complaint and wanted to withdraw
the same. Based on the said statement, the complaint was ordered to be
dismissed as withdrawn on 13.05.2023.
5. The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and
has submitted that the impugned order has been rightly passed.
6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper-book.
7. From the above-said facts and circumstances, it is apparent that
vide order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class,
Hisar, the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person in a complaint case
i.e. Complaint No.NACT/528/2021 filed under the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 and the said complaint itself has been withdrawn.
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."
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.
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."
A perusal of the relevant extract of the above judgment would
show that where the main case was dismissed for want of prosecution, it was
observed that the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC shall
be an abuse of the process of court. A similar view has been expressed by
this Court in "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".
In the present case the proceedings under the Negotiable
Instruments Act have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the
complaint.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and subject
to a deposit of Rs.25,000/- as costs with the Sadhana Society for the
Mentally Handicapped, Near Housing Board Chowk, Raen Basera Building,
Manimajra, Sector-13, Chandigarh, the impugned order dated 07.09.2022
passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar along with all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
May 02, 2024 JUDGE
satish
Whether speaking/reasoned : YES / NO
Whether reportable : YES/ NO
