Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajiv Kumar Chugh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 8 May, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064508
CRM-M-23030-2024 (O & M)
::1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(128)
CRM-M-23030-2024 (O & M)
Date of decision:08.05.2024
Rajiv Kumar Chugh ...... Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana and anr. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Abhimanyu Batra, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rupinder Singh Jhand, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
Ms. Yashasvi Kapila, Advocate,
for respondent No.2/complainant.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No.0676 dated 26.04.2023 under Section 174-A IPC registered at Police
Station Karnal Civil Lines, District Karnal and all other subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted against the petitioner-Rajiv
Kumar Chugh being the director of M/s Four Fresh Retail Pvt. Ltd. at the
instance of the complainant-Satish Kumar. Initially, the petitioner had
appeared and was released on bail by the Trial Court. But thereafter, due to
certain reason neither he could appear before the Trial Court nor he could
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064508
CRM-M-23030-2024 (O & M)
::2
inform his counsel. Therefore, vide order dated 11.03.2022 (Annexure P-3)
passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender,
pursuant to which an FIR No.0676 dated 26.04.2023 (Annexure P-1) under
Section 174-A IPC had been ordered to be registered against the petitioner.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused approached to the
complainant, compromised the matter and the dispute between the parties
was settled for Rs.8,50,000/- as full and final settlement. The petitioner-
accused gave a demand draft of Rs.50,000/- and it was agreed that the
remaining amount would be paid at the time of withdrawal of the complaint
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereafter, on
01.05.2024, the petitioner had made the payment of the balance amount in
terms of the compromise dated 25.09.2023 (Annexure P-4). On 02.05.2024,
Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate for the complainant, appeared before the
Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal and suffered a statement that
as per the instructions of the complainant, he did not want to pursue the
complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and withdrew the same.
Therefore, the complaint in question was dismissed as withdrawn vide order
dated 02.05.2024 (Annexure P-7). In view of the dismissal of the complaint
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of the
compromise, the present petition has been filed for quashing of aforesaid
FIR No. 0676 dated 26.04.2023 under Section 174-A IPC registered at
Police Station Karnal Civil Lines, District Karnal (Annexure P-1) and all
other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064508
CRM-M-23030-2024 (O & M)
::3
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present
FIR came to be registered against the petitioner due to his non-appearance in
the aforementioned complaint. Thereafter, the matter was compromised
between the parties and the petitioner- accused had made the payment of the
entire settled amount to the complainant. On 02.05.2024, the complainant
through his Advocate got recorded a statement before the Trial Court that
since the matter had been compromised between the parties, he did not want
to proceed further with the complaint and wanted to withdraw the same.
Based on the said statement, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn vide
order dated 02.05.2024 (Annexure P-7).
5. The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and
has submitted that the FIR had been correctly registered.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand,
admits the factum of compromise and submits that he has no objection if the
present petition is allowed and the FIR (Annexure P-1) is quashed.
7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
has perused the paper-book.
8. From the above-said facts and circumstances, it is apparent
that the present FIR was registered in view of the fact that the petitioner was
declared as a proclaimed person in the proceeding under Section 138 of the
Act of 1881. The impugned complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881
itself has been withdrawn.
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064508
CRM-M-23030-2024 (O & M)
::4
9. 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
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064508
CRM-M-23030-2024 (O & M)
::5
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."
10. 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 for quashing of the FIR under Section 174-A IPC.
11. 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
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064508
CRM-M-23030-2024 (O & M)
::6
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."
12. 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".
13. In the present case the proceedings under Section 138 NI Act
have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the complaint under
Section 138 NI Act.
14. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and
subject to a deposit of 15% of the cheque amount of Rs.21,00,000/- as costs
with the Day Care Centre for Elderly Disabled in home for Old and Destitute
People, Sector 15, Chandigarh, the impugned FIR No..0676 dated
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064508
CRM-M-23030-2024 (O & M)
::7
26.04.2023 under Section 174-A IPC registered at Police Station Karnal
Civil Lines, District Karnal (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner only.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
May 08, 2024
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
