Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pritpal Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 7 May, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063502
CRM-M-51518-2018
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
115 CRM-M-51518-2018
DECIDED ON: 07.05.2024
Pritpal Singh PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Punjab and Anr. RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Amandeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG, Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of
of Order dated 03.09.2016 passed by JMIC Bathina whereby petitioner has been
declared proclaimed person in criminal Complaint No. COMA-1548/2015
dated 10.09.2015 filed under Section 138 of NI Act along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the complaint
summons were issued against the petitioner but the same was not properly
served and service was effected through his mother but the Trial Court issued
non-bailable warrants agianst the petitioner on 02.02.2016. Thereafter on
14.07.2016, without waiting for the service of non-bailable warrants, the
proclamation proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and vide order
dated 03.09.2016, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender.
3. He states that the main complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act stands withdrawn by the complainant on 19.08.2017 and the
petitioner has been acquitted by the JMIC, Bathinda,
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063502
CRM-M-51518-2018
4. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
5. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the main complaint stands withdrawn by the complainant on
19.08.2017, therefore, continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC
would be abuse of process of law. Also, this principle has been laid down in
several dictums of this Court and reliance can be placed upon the orders dated
20.07.2022 and 24.08.2022 respectively, passed by a coordinate Bench of this
Court in CRM-M-46062-2017, titled as "Jatin Dhawan and another versus
State of Haryana and another" and CRM-M-12534-2022, titled as "Krishan
Kumar versus State of Haryana and another", respectively wherein it has been
held that once the main case is dismissed as withdrawn, the continuation of
proceedings under Section 174-A IPC shall be an abuse of process of law.
6. Further reliance can be placed upon the orders of this Court dated
12.12.2022 and 13.12.2022 passed in CRM-M-55634-2022 titled as "Jinder
Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another" and CRM-M-45051-2022 titled as
"Hari Singh Meena Vs. State of Haryana", respectively in this regard.
7. 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
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063502
CRM-M-51518-2018
while granting bail to the petitioner, the default stood condoned. In
such circumstances, continuation of proceedings under Section
174-A I.P.C. Shall be abuse of the process of court.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.446 dated 21.08.2017,
registered under Section 174-A I.P.C. At Police Station Kotwali,
District Faridabad, as well as consequential proceedings shall
stand quashed."
8. 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 of the IPC shall be an
abuse of the process of court.
9. Since the main complaint has been dismissed as withdrawn, as is
evident from the perusal of aforesaid order passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Bathina and the offence between the petitioner and complainant is
personal in nature not against the society at large, who have resolved their
dispute, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings in
the instant case.
10. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, the present
petition is allowed and Order dated 03.09.2016 passed by JMIC Bathina
whereby petitioner has been declared proclaimed person in criminal Complaint
No. COMA-1548/2015 dated 10.09.2015 filed under Section 138 of NI Act
along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed
qua the petitioner.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
07.05.2024 JUDGE
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
