Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaspal Singh Arora vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 17 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006592
CRM-M-2363-2025 -1
127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-2363-2025
Date of Decision:17.01.2025
Jaspal Singh Arora ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and Anr. ...Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present: Mr. Karan Kaushal, Advocate
for the petitioner(through VC).
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Banku, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
***
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of
Cr. P.C with a prayer to quash FIR No. 17, dated 13.01.2024, registered under
Section 174-A of IPC, Police Station Faridabad Kotwali, Haryana
(Annexure P-1) as well as the order dated 21.10.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by
the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad in a criminal complaint
No.6557/2019, whereby, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person and
all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a criminal
complaint No.6557/2019, titled as "Haryana Ishpat Uduog Vs. Raxmech
Industries etc", under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act") was filed against the present petitioner.
After recording of the preliminary evidence, the petitioner was ordered to be
summoned in the present case. Even, the summons/warrants issued by the Trial
Court were never served on the present petitioner. Still, without following the
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006592
CRM-M-2363-2025 -2
mandatory provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 21.10.2023
(Annexure P-2), the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person and it was
also ordered that the proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC may also be
initiated against the petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that on coming
to know about the registration of the criminal case, the petitioner settled the
dispute and also signed the Memo of Understanding (MOU). As per the MOU,
the petitioner had cleared the entire outstanding amount. Ultimately, the
complainant/respondent appeared before the Trial Court and made a statement
that he did not want to continue with the present FIR and he may be permitted
to withdraw the same. Vide order dated 21.11.2024 (Annexure P-5), the
respondent/complainant was permitted to withdraw the main complaint under
Section 138 of the "Act". Learned counsel further submits that the main
purpose of declaring the present petitioner as proclaimed person was to procure
his presence before the Trial Court and since the main matter has already been
compromised between the parties, the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 17,
dated 13.01.2024, registered under Section 174-A of IPC, Police Station
Faridabad Kotwali, Haryana (Annexure P-1) and the impugned order dated
21.10.2023 (Annexure P-2) would be an abuse of the process of the Court and
the same are liable to be quashed by this Court.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner
had intentionally evading the process of law and did not appear before the Trial
Court. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner has not been
able to point out any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court
and the petition deserves to be dismissed by this Court.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006592
CRM-M-2363-2025 -3
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record carefully.
5. 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."
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006592
CRM-M-2363-2025 -4
6. 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.
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 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
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006592
CRM-M-2363-2025 -5
Kotwali, District Faridabad, as well as consequential proceedings
shall stand quashed."
8. 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. 17, dated 13.01.2024, registered under Section 174-A of IPC,
Police Station Faridabad Kotwali, Haryana (Annexure P-1) 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 State of Haryana and another, CRM-M-42551- 2021
decided on 19.04.2022" .
9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and impugned
order dated 21.10.2023 (Annexure P-2) and FIR No. 17, dated 13.01.2024,
registered under Section 174-A of IPC, Police Station Faridabad Kotwali,
Haryana (Annexure P-1) alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom are hereby ordered to be quashed.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
17.01.2025 JUDGE
hitesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
