Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1648 (PNJ)

Pankaj Sharma v. State of Haryana

2022-09-05

SANJAY VASHISTH

body2022
JUDGMENT Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral) - The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of the impugned order dated 24.09.2018 vide which petitioner-Pankaj Sharma, has been declared proclaimed person in FIR No. 0736 dated 01.10.2018 under Section 174-A IPC, registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar Disrict Gurugram, Haryana along with all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. While referring to order dated 22.04.2019 (Annxure P-7), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that dispute between the parties was resolved and the statement in this regard was recorded and in pursuance thereof the complaint was ordered to be withdrawn vide order dated 22.04.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that order of declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person in case had already been passed on 24.09.2018 (Annexure P-5). Pursuant to having been declared as a proclaimed person, the present FIR No. 736 dated 01.10.2018 under Section 174-A, was also registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar Disrict Gurugram, Haryana. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner cites judgment dated 13.07.2022 passed in CRM-M-12034-2022 (Hitesh H. Shah v. State of Haryana and another). He submits that case of the petitioner is completely identical on the facts and law to that of the referred judgment. 4. Notice of motion. 5. On asking of the Court, Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. He submits that impugned order has been passed as per law by following all the provisions of Cr. P. C., and therefore, same is worth to sustain. However, he is not disputing the fact that the very dispute out of which proceedings have been initiated under Section 174-A IPC stands finalised and the main petition under Section 138 of NI Act has already been withdrawn on 22.04.2019. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case record available before me. 7. It is clear that dispute between private parties regarding cheque amount of Rs. 50,000/- has already been ended as the main petition stands withdrawn in view of the statement of the complainant vide order dated 22.04.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner has already given his explanation in para Nos. 5 and 6 of present petition which reads as follows: '5. It is clear that dispute between private parties regarding cheque amount of Rs. 50,000/- has already been ended as the main petition stands withdrawn in view of the statement of the complainant vide order dated 22.04.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner has already given his explanation in para Nos. 5 and 6 of present petition which reads as follows: '5. That on dated 17.05.2018 the respondent No. 2 had issued a no objection certificate to the petitioner vide which it is mentioned that respondent No. 2 has received complete payment from the petitioner and there is no further amount is outstanding towards the petitioner. It is further to mention here that on the same day respondent No. 2 assured that there is no need to present in person before the Court in the proceedings of complaint u/s 138 N. I. Act as you had already deposited the entire payment and on the next date of hearing the respondent No. 2 will withdrawn the complaint u/s 138 of N. I. Act. A copy of no objection certificate is annexed herewith asAnnexure P-3. 6. That on the assurance of the respondent no. 2, the petitioner did not put his appearance before the Id. Trial Court as he was in this impression that the respondent No. 2 would have withdraw the complaint u/s 138 of N. I.Act. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner was astonished when he came to know that the respondent No. 2 has not withdraw the complaint u/s 138 of N. I. Act despite the full payment paid by the petitioner and Id. Trial Court declared the petitioner proclaimed offender with a direction to register a FIR u/s 174-A against the petitioner. The copies of order of proclaimed offender and FIR are annexed herewith as Annexure P-4 & P-5. ' 8. 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. xxxxxxxxx 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. xxxxxxxxx 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. ' 9. A perusal of the above judgment would show that in a similar case where the FIR had been registered under Section 174-AIPC in view of the order passed in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, while declaring the petitioner therein as proclaimed offender, a coordinate 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 consideration for allowing the petition and setting aside the order declaring the petitioner therein as proclaimed person as well as quashing of the FIR under Section 174-A IPC. 10. The said aspect was one of the main consideration for allowing the petition and setting aside the order declaring the petitioner therein as proclaimed person as well as quashing of the FIR under Section 174-A IPC. 10. Another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled as 'Ashok Madan v. 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 while granting bail to the petitioner, the default stood condoned. In such circumstances, continuation of proceedings under Section 174A LP.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 LP.C. At Police Station Kotwali, District Faridabad, as well as consequential proceedings shall stand quashed. ' 11. Relying upon the said observation, in case of Hitesh H. Shah v. State of Haryana and another in CRM-M-12034-2022 proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC has been said to be abuse of the process of law, once main dispute between the parties has already ended. 12. Under these circumstances, once the very petition stands withdrawn on the basis of compromise, continuation of the instant FIR under Section 174-A of IPC is nothing but an abuse of process of law. In this regard reliance can be placed upon judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Microaual Techno Limited and others v. State o f Haryana and another-2015(32) RCR (Criminal) 790 which has also been followed in CRM-M-47891-2021 tilled as Jitender Singh v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 16.11.2021. 13. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 24.09.2018 (Annexure P-5) and the instant FIR No. 0736 dated 01.10.2018 (Annexure P-4) under Section 174-A IPC, registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar Disrict Gurugram, Haryana along with all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner herein.