High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/20610/2022disposed of

Om Parkash v. State Of Haryana

2023-05-225 pages

1 2023:PHHC:074487

!" #$%$!&'((

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

&!, * ((((((( %2!&1 &%

' 34 ( / /

Present:

Mr. K.D.Sehra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Surender Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. / 6( *

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of order dated 20.12.2021 whereby the petitioner herein was declared a proclaimed offender in a criminal complaint No. NIA/63 of 2018, under Sections 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC titled as "Bheem Singh vs. Om Parkash" with regard to dishonour of cheque and also sought quashing of FIR No. 501, dated 29.12.2021, under Section 1748A IPC, registered at Police City Sohna, Gurgaon.

In this case on 08.03.2022 (Annexure P85) respondent No.28 Bheem Singh made a statement that he has compromised with the accused (petitioner) as he has received the amount of the dishnonoured cheque. He further stated that he did not want to pursue the complaint further and the

2 2023:PHHC:074487 same might be filed. As such, quashing of proceedings under Section 1748A of IPC has been sought by way of the present petition. 3.

The question which arises for consideration of this Court is whether on account of withdrawal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of compromise, the present FIR deserves to be quashed?

The stand of learned counsel representing the petitioner is that the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender in contravention of the prescribed procedure under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner was never served before the proclamation was issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has duly paid the amount involved in the cheque in question and both the parties have settled the matter amicably which has resulted in withdrawal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the factual backdrop of this case, undisputedly, once the substantive offence already stands settled between the petitioner and respondent No.28Bheem Singh, the continuation of prosecution under Section 1748A of the IPC would be an abuse of the process of law.

Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the various pronouncements on the issue involved in the present case. In 8996 71 - , &1 &% 7-%(/ !" &!, *6 decided on 29.01.20196:$+ %/, *) -%( .*2* /$&;,<!,7$ &1

&!, *6 =6 4((( 986 $#*!>.

7 #,&! 4$)$ 1 &1 !, *%:%(/ !" &!, *6 *7( =? &1 @& %,<, && :%(/ !" &!, *6= 4((( wherein, in identical circumstances, the Coordinate Benches of this Court

3 2023:PHHC:074487 has held that since the main petition filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments 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. 6.

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in :$+ % .2 -%(/ !"

&1!, *%6 while quashing the FIR under Section 1748A of the IPC in ?9 decided on 01.08.2018 has observed the following:8 "

A Coordinate Bench of this Court also took the same view in the case of * ,.7.* @ &!, *-%(/ !".&@ A

( (( *$)$& 89and held as under:8

!"# $ %&'( ")*

4 2023:PHHC:074487

$ %+, %,,%

!"# $ %&'( ")*

$ %&'( ")*

* .

A Coordinate Bench of this Court also dealt with same question in %,!+ & -%( / !" &1 &!, * 8 *$)$& 9= wherein it had been held that since the FIR under Section 1748A IPC had been registered only on account of absence of the accused from the proceedings in the main case which had been subsequently regularized by the Court while granting bail to the petitioner, the default stood condoned and, therefore, the FIR deserved to be quashed. 9.

Learned counsel representing the State has not been able to controvert the aforesaid facts and the position of law as laid down in the aforesaid judgment.

10.

This Court, while examining the facts and circumstances of the present case, is of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the aforementioned decisions is correct. Once the substantive offence has been settled through compromise between the petitioner and respondent No.2, the continuation of the proceedings under the impugned FIR would tantamount to an abuse of the process of law.

5 2023:PHHC:074487 11.

Accordingly the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 501, dated 29.12.2021, under Section 1748A IPC, registered at Police City Sohna, Gurgaon along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed qua the petitioner.

(( sunita Whether Reasoned/Speaking : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No