← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/9044/2024allowed

Rajender Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2024-02-20Mr. Justice Alok Jain4 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (123) Date of Decision:-20.02.2024 Rajender Kumar ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ......Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN ****

Present:

Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. **** ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition is for quashing of the FIR No. 724 dated 04.09.2022 under Section 174-A of IPC, registered at Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa (Annexure P-2) which is the outcome of order dated 10.08.2022 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender in the complaint case No. NACT-818-2020 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 on account of his nonappearance in said case. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the matter had been compromised and the above said complaint had been withdrawn by complainant on 05.08.2023 but due to oversight and inadvertence, the order dated 10.08.2022, whereby, the petitioner had been

-2declared a proclaimed person, was not set aside which led to the lodging of the above said FIR.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has consistently held that in the cases where an FIR under Section 174-A has been registered in view of the order passed in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, while declaring the petitioner therein as proclaimed offender, once the main complaint under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties, the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. 6.

To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by 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, wherein, it has been 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.

-3Gurpreet 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." 7.

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the following judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court:- (i) CRM-M-53195-2022 titled as "Nirmaljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others" reported as 2023 (244) AIC 676 (ii) CRM-M-59826-2022 titled as "Subhash Vs. State of Haryana and another, reported as 2023 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 722 (iii) CRM-M-47657-2022 titled as "Randhir Singh Tyagi Vs. State of Haryana and another", reported as 2022 (3) DCR 694 8.

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

-49.

Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances as well as the authorities of law referred to hereinabove, the present petition is squarely covered by the same and, hence, allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 724 dated 04.09.2022 under Section 174-A of IPC, registered at Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa, and all the subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

(ALOK JAIN) JUDGE February 20, 2024 parul Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No