← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/21631/2024disposed of

Raj Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2024-05-01Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi6 pages

      





!

   



"#$ %& '$()*)%+,,

Raj Kumar ...... Petitioner V/s State of Haryana

...Respondent



 -.

,

/

/  /  

Present:

Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Ravish Kaushik, Addl.A.G., Haryana *****

/  /  0

, 1"2 This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.0049 dated 19.01.2022 under Section 1744A IPC registered at Police Station Civl Lines, Karnal (Annexure P43) as the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person in complaint NACT/813/2019 dated 28.02.2019 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 Dalbir and the petitioner/accused4Raj Kumar at the instance of the complainant4Axis Bank Ltd. through its Special Power of Attorney Holder Kunal Sodhi. As the accused did not appear before the Trial Court to face trial, the petitioner and his co4accused were declared as proclaimed persons as per the order dated 24.02.2021 (Annexure P42) pursuant to which an FIR (Annexure P43) under

 Section 1744A IPC had been ordered to be registered against the petitioner and his co4accused/Dalbir in complaint bearing NACT/813/2019 pending before the JMIC, Karnal.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused approached to the complainant, compromised the matter and paid the entire due amount to the complainant4Bank. Thereafter, the complainant4Bank appeared through Mr. Amish Goel, Advocate before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal and suffered a statement that as per the instructions of the complainant4Bank, he did not want to pursue the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and withdrew the same. Therefore, the complaint in question was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.03.2023 (Annexure P44). 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 aforesaid FIR No.0049 dated 19.01.2022 under Section 1744A IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal (Annexure P43) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR came to be registered against the petitioner due to his non4appearance in the aforementioned complaint. Thereafter, the matter was compromised between the parties and the petitioner4 accused/Raj Kumar had made the payment of the entire due amount to the complainant4Bank. On 22.03.2023, the complainant4Bank through its Advocate got recorded a statement before the Trial Court that since the matter had been compromised between the parties and the Bank had received the entire due amount, therefore, he did

 not want to proceed further with the complaint and wanted to withdraw the same. Based on the said statement, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.03.2023 (Annexure P44). 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 petitioner and the learned State counsel and has perused the paper4book.

7. From the above4said facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the present FIR was registered in view of the fact that the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person in the proceeding under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. The impugned complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 itself has been withdrawn.

8. A co4ordinate Bench of this Court in   titled as "

    



        

 

decided on 29.01.2019 has held as under:4    

      

       

  !"

 #$

    %

  "!

 !"

# &  "

'   

   

 )    



(

 % *) "

"

 ) 

 



  +++++++++ , "  

    

"   (

%   !

 "

#$% &' ($% )

&-./

 ,$ 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 1744A 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 co4ordinate 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 1744A 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 1744A IPC. 10.

Another co4ordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled as "/!   

reported as

() ( " 

)0has also held as under:4 ( &

  "  



 

 * 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 1744A 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, CRM4M4 587842022 decided on 06.04.2022", "Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar

 and another, CRM4M4575542022 decided on 06.04.2022" and "Varinder Kumar @ Virender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and another, CRM4M4 4255142021 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.50,000/4 as costs with the Day Care Centre for Elderly Disabled in home for Old and Destitute People, Sector 15, Chandigarh, the impugned FIR No.0049 dated 19.01.2022 under Section 1744A IPC registered at Police Station Civl Lines, Karnal (Annexure P43) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner only.

/  /  

 

"3 0

sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No