Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1331 (PNJ)

Ashish Khod. v. State of Haryana

2023-04-13

JASJIT SINGH BEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.768 dated 04.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) under Section 174A IPC registered at P.S. Azad Nagar, Hisar, District Hisar, Haryana as well as subsequent proceedings arising out of the FIR as well as order dated 16.08.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar whereby petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person in complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments, 1881 titled as Pardeep Kumar v. Ashish Khod. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in discharge of his legal liability, the petitioner/accused issued a cheque for amount of Rs.9,00,000/- dated 09.10.2018 in favour of respondent No.2-complainanat. The said cheque came to be dishonoured. Pursuant thereto, as no payment was made in lieu of the dishonoured cheque, a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act came to be instituted against the petitioner/accused and he was summoned to face trial. Subsequently, he was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 16.08.2022 (Annexure P-2) Pursuant to the said order, FIR No.768 dated 04.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) came to be registered under Section 174A of IPC at Police Station Azad Nagar, Hisar, District Hisar against him. 3. Thereafter, a compromise was effected between the parties and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the order dated 09.02.2023 (Annexure P-3). 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 the aforesaid order dated 16.08.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar and the consequential FIR (Annexure P-1). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that he had wrongly been declared a proclaimed person and on learning about the same, the petitioner compromised the matter with the complainant. Thereafter, on 09.02.2023, the GPA of the complainant in the Trial Court got recorded his statement that as per his instructions, the complainant did not want to proceed further with the present complaint and wanted to withdraw the same. Based on the said statement, the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn on 09.02.2023 (P-3). 5. The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the petitioner has rightly been declared a proclaimed offender. 6. Based on the said statement, the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn on 09.02.2023 (P-3). 5. The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the petitioner has rightly been declared a proclaimed offender. 6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper-book. 7. 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 the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The impugned complaint itself has been withdrawn. 8. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-43813-2018 titled as "Baldev Chand Bansal v. 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 174A 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 v. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another (supra), 2017, (3) L.A.R.584, Microqual Techno Limited and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2015 (32) RCR (Criminal) 790 and "Rajneesh Khanna v. 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 174A 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 174A 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 174A 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 FIRs under Section 174A 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 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." 11. 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 174A IPC shall be an abuse of the process of court. A similar view has been expressed by this Court in " Anil Kumar v. Jitender Kumar and another, CRM-M- 5878-2022 decided on 06.04.2022", "Anil Kumar v. Jitender Kumar and another, CRM-M-5755-2022 decided on 06.04.2022" and "Varinder Kumar @ Virender Kumar v. State of Haryana and another, CRM-M-42551- 2021 decided on 19.04.2022". 12. A similar view has been expressed by this Court in " Anil Kumar v. Jitender Kumar and another, CRM-M- 5878-2022 decided on 06.04.2022", "Anil Kumar v. Jitender Kumar and another, CRM-M-5755-2022 decided on 06.04.2022" and "Varinder Kumar @ Virender Kumar v. State of Haryana and another, CRM-M-42551- 2021 decided on 19.04.2022". 12. In the present case the proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the complaint. Therefore, no purpose shall be served by allowing the instant proceedings to continue. 13. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No.768 dated 04.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) under Section 174A IPC registered at P.S. Azad Nagar, Hisar, District Hisar, Haryana as well as subsequent proceedings arising out of the FIR as well as order dated 16.08.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar whereby petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person in complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments, 1881 titled as Pardeep Kumar v. Ashish Khod are hereby quashed.