Charanpreet Singh v. State Of Haryana
!
"# $!%&'&"()*+*
Charanpreet Singh ...... Petitioner V/s State of Haryana
...Respondent
, - * . . .
Present:
Mr. Praveen Kumar Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rupinder Singh Jhand, Addl.A.G., Haryana. ***** . .
/
*
0 1 This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.209/2020 dated 08.04.2020 under Section 1743A IPC registered at Police Station Faridabad Central, Haryana (Annexure P32) in a matter bearing No.CHI/2475/2020 and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted against the petitioner3 Charanpreet Singh being the proprietor of the Punjab Law Agency at the instance of the complainant3Pankaj Singh. Subsequently, the impugned FIR No.20932020 dated 08.04.2020 under Section 1743A IPC, Police Station Faridaband Central, Haryana, came to be registered against the petitioner.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused approached to the complainant, compromised the matter and the payment of the cheque amount was made to the complainant. Thereafter, on 28.07.2020, the complainant through his Advocate Mr. Vinay Singh suffered a statement before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridaband that a compromise had been effected between the parties, pursuant to which he had received the payment of the cheque amount and therefore, he did not want to pursue the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Therefore, the complaint in question was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 29.07.2020 (Annexure P37). 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 FIR No. 209/2020 dated 08.04.2020 under Section 1743A IPC registered at Police Station Faridabad Central, Haryana (Annexure P32) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
4.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was compromised between the parties and the petitioner3 accused had made the payment of the entire cheque amount to the complainant. On 28.07.2020, the complainant through his Advocate got recorded a statement before the Trial Court that since the matter had been compromised between the parties, he did not want to proceed further with the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and wanted to withdraw the same. Based on
the said statement, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 29.07.2020 (Annexure P33).
5.
The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the FIR had been correctly registered.
6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper3book.
7. From the above3said facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the present FIR was registered during the pendency of the proceeding under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. The complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 itself has been withdrawn.
8. A co3ordinate Bench of this Court in titled as "
decided on 29.01.2019 has held as under:3
!"
#$
%
"!
!"
# & "
'
)
(
% *) "
"
)
+++++++++ , "
" (
% !
"
#$% &' ($% )
&-./ ,$ 0& *+$
,* - "
-.
/%-% / 1
. '
-./ ,$
) " ""2
"&
%
"
2
!"
.0
$"
)
) *) 2"(
2 ( )
&
& " !"
$%
(
( (
"
) +++++++++ *)
2& 2
"" & )
2
(3" 4
&
%
& "
' )
!"
#$
% "!
!"
# & "
'
&
(
5 9.
A perusal of the above judgment would show that in a similar case where the FIR had been registered under Section 1743A 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 co3ordinate 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 1743A 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 for quashing of the FIR under Section 1743A IPC. 10.
Another co3ordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled as "/!
reported as
() ( "
)0has also held as under:3 ( &
"
* 2
" !"
$%
2 " &
& 2 ("
2 " ( 2
)
" &
" ( )&
)*&' *)
"
)
"" ( " 2
2 " ) "
( (
" ) (
&
" "
""2
" &" !"
$%!
((
"
" $"" &
)
0
&
!"
$%$ " !
6 ) & 7
"
(& )
"
5 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 1743A IPC shall be an abuse of the process of court. A similar view has been expressed by this Court in "Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar and another, CRM3M3
587832022 decided on 06.04.2022", "Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar and another, CRM3M3575532022 decided on 06.04.2022" and "Varinder Kumar @ Virender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and another, CRM3M3 4255132021 decided on 19.04.2022".
12.
In the present case the proceedings under Section 138 NI Act have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the complaint under Section 138 NI Act.
13. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and subject to a deposit of Rs.25,000/3 as costs with the Spinal Rehab Centre, Chandigarh Plot No.1, Madhya Marg, Sector 283A, Chandigarh, 01723 4610311, the impugned FIR No.209/2020 dated 08.04.2020 under Section 1743A IPC, Police Station Faridabad Central, Haryana (Annexure P32) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner only.
. .
2 )/
sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No