Sandeep Kumar Soni Alias Sandeep Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-6624-2025 Date of decision: February 5th, 2025 Sandeep Kumar .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been filed under for quashing of order dated 26.04.2022 passed by learned JMIC, Hisar, whereby the petitioner had been declared as proclaimed person in complaint bearing No.NACT-1370-2020 titled as 'Ved Parkash Versus Sandeep Kumar' and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has drawn the attention of this Court to order dated 25.04.2023, wherein it stands reflected that in view of a statement made by the complainant, the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI Act') was dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of a compromise. A prayer, therefore, has been made that in the aforementioned facts and circumstances, no purpose would be served by prosecuting the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Sher Singh vs. State of Haryana (CRM-M-11846-2023) decided on 09.03.2023, wherein in identical facts and circumstances, PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.02.05 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-6624-2025 the FIR registered under Section 174-A of the IPC against the petitioner was quashed.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Rahul Mohan, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

5.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by the counsel opposite and contended that it was evident that the petitioner had intentionally not appeared during the proceedings before the Court below and hence, the prayer of the petitioner deserved to be declined. 6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.

7.

The petitioner was declared a proclaimed person in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act. Admittedly, the said complaint was withdrawn after the parties arrived at a compromise. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings for offence under Section 174-A of the IPC would serve no useful purpose. 8.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Order dated 26.04.2022 passed by learned JMIC, Hisar, declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person and FIR registered under Section 174-A of the IPC along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. February 5th, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.02.05 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh