Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamal vs State Of Haryana on 3 September, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:120956
- 1-
293
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-34542-2023
DECIDED ON: 03.09.2024
KAMAL
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Mr.Lalit Kumar Narang, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Pannu, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr.Kushagar Goyal, Advocate for complainant/ respondent No.2.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR
bearing No.666 dated 21.11.2017 (Annexure P-1), under Section 174-A IPC
registered at Police Station Meham, District Rohtak arising out of complaint
bearing COMA-140 of 2016 titled as "Parveen versus Kamal" under Section 138 NI
Act (CNR No.HRRHA1-000564-2016) that has been compromised and all
subsequent proceedings, arising there from.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main complaint
HRRNA1-00564-2016, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, stands
compromised.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR
(Annexure P-1) on account of the fact that the petitioner was never served, as there
is no evidence with regard to the service upon the petitioner in the complaint under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
4. He further contends that on 31.10.2017, the proceedings in complaint
were fixed for presence of the present petitioner, wherein the petitioner remained
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:120956
- 2-
absent, therefore, the Id. ACJ(Sd) SDJM, Meham declared the petitioner as
Proclaimed Person and sent the copy of the order to SHO of the concerned Police
Station for registration of FIR under section 174-A IPC. A copy of the order dated
31.10.2017 is annexed as (Annexure P4).
7. Heard, learned counsel for respective parties.
8. Since the main complaint has been compromised , as is evident from
the perusal of aforesaid order dated 28.09.2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by Addl.
Civil Judge, Sr.Division Meham 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 FIR No.666 dated 21.11.2017, registered at Police Station Meham,
District Rohtak, under Section 174-A of IPC (Annexure P-1).
9. This Court is convinced on perusal of the pleadings and the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was never
served with the summoning orders or any bailable/non-bailable warrants at any
stage during the course of trial, the continuation of proceedings in the instant FIR,
in pursuance of the order dated 31.10.2017 passed by ACJ(Sr.Division), Meham
would tantamount to nothing else, but an abuse of process of law, which will finally
be turned to a futile exercise.
10. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the main complaint has been compromised in view of the order dated
28.09.2021 (Annexure P-5), 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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:120956
- 3-
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.
11. 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.
12. 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 174-A 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 174-A I.P.C. Shall be
abuse of the process of court.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.666 dated 21.11.2017, registered under
Section 174-A I.P.C. At Police Station Meham, Distt Rohtak, as well as
consequential proceedings shall stand quashed."
13. 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:120956
- 4-
that the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC shall be an
abuse of the process of court.
14. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, the present
petition is allowed and FIR No. 666 dated 21.11.2017, registered at Police Station
Meham, District Rohtak (Annexure P-1) alongwith all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
03.09.2024 JUDGE
raman
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
