Anil Kumar v. State Of Haryana


   

     


 

  





   ! "

$%



  ! "  "#

  

&'(

)%* ) '$  $%&'(($)*+$%,!- )$./ 

# '$ $ +

'&,-./ % % / 0 !/-
) !  ! 0 00)

 % % 023

4$ %5# 

%  6-
)  

)  *%  7''  '  $  '

  5  %

% .
8.  % %  %  !'

5'

 *  

)  ! 0 ' .& 5 -

)  9

%       '  $  '

   %  '

  ' $ $  %  % !0'.- )'7* )%

&'$%#'

)'$

%

$ % ' 5 %' &%,-

!  /  -
 7   %  &   '   "     '

  * ' 75''%'

* %' %$ 5 '.

  9:%   %'5 '

)' '

57'%

7 *% %  " '

 *% '

% %  $ %5#

% %&; .

 9:%   

6-
)

)' '

7'%

7*7  

    %5#'   % &' 

 % 57'$

"

'  '

'

   %  7'%

7) $      '  $    '   &%  ,-

!/7 %5'&5   '$  ' 7 0 .    !

6 )%%<)"

) $5'

 '!  " '

 %'

 '$  &'#%

 )$



7'',- %7  &  ' !/-


 -'

*'

%  '$

 %$

%'  %-

$$

'

'$ ,-7  %%  $$

' $ '7

 $ *% %

0 %5 '


)'

  % 7'%

7 This Court time and again has held that when the main proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act stand compromised, then the continuation of FIR and proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC on account of petitioner having been declared as proclaimed person would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. This view was taken by the coordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled as "Ashok Madan vs. State of Haryana and another" reported as 2020(4) RCR (Criminal) 87, "Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar and another", CRM-M-5878- 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.

0 / !):$&*7' 5* % )

'

%  ' 5)'$

$  %'   ) ,-7  %8'%$ 57'$

'

5% %'



 * #' '

   %#57'%

7


'$ %& !/-
'

5  '$ ' 7 '

%$ '

   %#5  % *7' %57'$

$&*7' %),-./ % % / 0 !/-
)  ! ! 0 00)

 %&' % %5#'

%6-
)

)'5 7'')'$ ,- %&%)

 +

'%  5=$  )

> 5 %$%7'' ?@

, %)<-A)
'

%&

'5# '$ 7' $ %% # % #8'$  % %' $ &

%&%$'5 '


 

%6-
)

7' $ % # % #  .% #'

 '$  $ #'

%   $#  7'  '    %  % )    '

&  % %

07 %   %'$ $7 %5% % '

*5% % 8'$ %%$%
$#' 5 ' %


 '7' - "#/

!

! 



'

 @'' !$ :&> %  B>. @'' $  5  B>.