Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parmod Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 21 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153857
CRM-M-57982-2024 - 1-
120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-57982-2024
Date of Decision:21.11.2024
Parmod Kumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and Anr. ...Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present: Mr. Sukesh Kumar Jindal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sheenu Sura, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of
B.N.S.S with a prayer to quash the FIR No.38, dated 13.01.2019, under Section
174-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Old Industrial, Panipat
(Annexure P-4) order dated 26.09.2018 (Annexure P-1) and the impugned order
dated 22.11.2018 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Panipat, whereby the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person in a
criminal complaint bearing case No.NACT-1154-2017 titled as "Bishamber
Singh Vs. Parmod Kumar" under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments
Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and all other subsequent proceedings
arising out therefrom.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent
No.2/complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the "Act" against
the petitioner and after preliminary evidence, vide order dated 08.03.2018, the
petitioner was summoned as an accused by the Trial Court. After the
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153857
CRM-M-57982-2024 - 2-
summoning, summons/warrants were repeatedly issued against the petitioner,
but the petitioner was not served. Ultimately, it was directed that the petitioner
was intentionally absconding and his presence could not be procured through
ordinary process. Consequently, a written proclamation under Section 82
Cr.P.C., be issued against him. After the issuance of proclamation against the
petitioner, vide the impugned order dated 22.11.2018 (Annexure P-3), the
petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person. In compliance of the order
dated 22.11.2018 (Annexure P-3), one FIR No.38, dated 13.01.2019, under
Section 174-A of IPC, Police Station Old Industrial, Panipat (Annexure P-4)
was ordered to be registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further contends that the petitioner was never served in this case and
has been declared as a proclaimed person. He further contends that the very
purpose of the impugned FIR was to procure the presence of the petitioner and
since the main matter already stood compromise between the parties, the
proceedings arising out of the impugned order dated 22.11.2018
(Annexure P-3) and the FIR (Annexure P-4) would be an instrument of misuse
of process of law.
3. 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.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153857
CRM-M-57982-2024 - 3-
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."
4. 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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153857
CRM-M-57982-2024 - 4-
petitioner therein as a proclaimed person as well as quashing of the FIR under
Section 174-A IPC.
5. 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
shall stand quashed."
6. In the present case also, the main case has already been withdrawn
by the complainant. Consequently, the continuation of the proceedings arising
out of FIR No.38, dated 13.01.2019, under Section 174-A of IPC, Police
Station Old Industrial, Panipat (Annexure P-4) 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
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153857
CRM-M-57982-2024 - 5-
State of Haryana and another, CRM-M-42551- 2021 decided on 19.04.2022" .
7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and FIR
No.38, dated 13.01.2019, under Section 174-A of IPC, Police Station Old
Industrial, Panipat (Annexure P-4), order dated 26.09.2018 (Annexure P-1) and
the impugned order dated 22.11.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, alongwith all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom are hereby ordered to be quashed.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
21.11.2024 JUDGE
hitesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
