Devki Nandan v. State Of Ut Chandigarh And ANR.
!"# $% &#'()($* +,, Devki Nandan ...... Petitioner V/s State of U.T., Chandigarh and anr.
...Respondents
- . ,
/
/ /
Present:
Mr. Pardeep Kumar Kapila, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Yashwant Singh Rathore, Addl.P.P.
for U.T., Chandigarh, assisted by Ms. Sudha Singh, Advocate, and Mr. Yuvraj Singh Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Vineet Jalehar, Advocate, for the respondent No.2.
*****
/ /
0
, 1!2 This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 12.12.2022 (Annexure P52) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh in complaint bearing No.9395 of 2021 CHCH03016269/2021 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act whereby the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed person and all other consequential 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
petitioner/accused at the instance of the complainant/respondent No.25 Harinder Kaur. As the petitioner/accused did not appear before the Trial Court to face trial, he was declared as a proclaimed person as per the order dated 12.12.2022 (Annexure P52) in complaint No.9395 of 2021.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused approached to the complainant and compromised the matter. Thereafter, Mr. Anshul Kukreja, the learned counsel for the complainant appeared before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh and suffered a statement that he wished to withdraw the present case under the instruction of complainant. Therefore, the complaint in question was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.04.2024. A copy of the said order is taken on record as Mark 'A'. 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 impugned order dated 12.12.2022 (Annexure P52) and the 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 non5appearance in the aforementioned complaint. Thereafter, the matter was compromised between the parties. On 09.04.2024, the complainant through her counsel got recorded his statement before the Trial Court that 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 09.04.2024 (Mark 'A').
5.
The learned State counsel for respondent No.1 has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the FIR had been correctly registered. 6.
The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted the factum of compromise having been arrived at between the parties.
7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper5book.
8. From the above5said facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the impugned order (Annexure P52) was passed due to non5appearance of the petitioner 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.
9. A co5ordinate Bench of this Court in titled as "
decided on 29.01.2019 has held as under:5
!"
#$
%
"!
!"
# & "
'
)
(
% *) "
"
)
+++++++++ , "
" (
% !
"
#$% &' ($% )
&-./ ,$ 0& *+$
,* - "
-.
/%-% / 1
. '
-./ ,$
) " ""2
"&
%
"
2
!"
.0
$"
)
) *) 2"(
2 ( )
&
& " !"
$%
(
( (
"
) +++++++++ *)
2& 2
"" & )
2
(3" 4
&
%
& "
' )
!"
#$
% "!
!"
# & "
'
&
(
5 10.
A perusal of the above judgment would show that in a similar case where the FIR had been registered under Section 1745A 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 co5ordinate 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 1745A 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 1745A IPC. 11.
Another co5ordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled as "/!
reported as
() ( "
)0has also held as under:5 ( &
"
* 2
" !"
$%
2 " &
& 2 ("
2 " ( 2
)
" &
" ( )&
)*&' *)
"
)
"" ( " 2
2 " ) "
( (
" ) (
&
" "
""2
" &" !"
$%!
((
"
" $"" &
)
0
&
!"
$%$ " !
6 ) & 7
"
(& )
"
5 12.
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 1745A 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, CRM5M5 587852022 decided on 06.04.2022", "Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar
and another, CRM5M5575552022 decided on 06.04.2022" and "Varinder Kumar @ Virender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and another, CRM5M5 4255152021 decided on 19.04.2022".
13.
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.
14. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.12.2022 (Annexure P52) vide which the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
/ /
31(2 +0
sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No