Rajiv Kumar Chugh v. State Of Haryana And Another
! " #$%$ &'()( Rajiv Kumar Chugh ...... Petitioner V/s State of Haryana and anr.
...Respondents
*+ ( , , ,
Present:
Mr. Abhimanyu Batra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rupinder Singh Jhand, Addl.A.G., Haryana. Ms. Yashasvi Kapila, Advocate, for respondent No.2/complainant.
***** , , - (
.
/ This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.0676 dated 26.04.2023 under Section 1747A IPC registered at Police Station Karnal Civil Lines, District Karnal 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 petitioner7Rajiv Kumar Chugh being the director of M/s Four Fresh Retail Pvt. Ltd. at the instance of the complainant7Satish Kumar. Initially, the petitioner had appeared and was released on bail by the Trial Court. But thereafter, due to certain reason neither he could appear before the Trial Court nor he could
inform his counsel. Therefore, vide order dated 11.03.2022 (Annexure P73) passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender, pursuant to which an FIR No.0676 dated 26.04.2023 (Annexure P71) under Section 1747A IPC had been ordered to be registered against the petitioner.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused approached to the complainant, compromised the matter and the dispute between the parties was settled for Rs.8,50,000/7 as full and final settlement. The petitioner7 accused gave a demand draft of Rs.50,000/7 and it was agreed that the remaining amount would be paid at the time of withdrawal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereafter, on 01.05.2024, the petitioner had made the payment of the balance amount in terms of the compromise dated 25.09.2023 (Annexure P74). On 02.05.2024, Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate for the complainant, appeared before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal and suffered a statement that as per the instructions of the complainant, 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 Therefore, the complaint in question was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 02.05.2024 (Annexure P77). 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. 0676 dated 26.04.2023 under Section 1747A IPC registered at Police Station Karnal Civil Lines, District Karnal (Annexure P71) 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 non7appearance in the aforementioned complaint. Thereafter, the matter was compromised between the parties and the petitioner7 accused had made the payment of the entire settled amount to the complainant. On 02.05.2024, 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 and wanted to withdraw the same. Based on the said statement, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 02.05.2024 (Annexure P77).
5.
The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the FIR had been correctly registered. 6.
The learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, admits the factum of compromise and submits that he has no objection if the present petition is allowed and the FIR (Annexure P71) is quashed.
7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper7book.
8. From the above7said 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.
9. A co7ordinate Bench of this Court in titled as "
decided on 29.01.2019 has held as under:7
!"
#$
%
"!
!"
# & "
'
( "
)
(
% *) "
"
)
+++++++++ , "
" (
% !
"
#$% &' ($% )
&-./ ,$ 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 1747A 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 co7ordinate 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 1747A 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 1747A IPC. 11.
Another co7ordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled as "/!
reported as
() ( "
)0has also held as under:7 ( &
"
* 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 1747A 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, CRM7M7 587872022 decided on 06.04.2022", "Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar and another, CRM7M7575572022 decided on 06.04.2022" and "Varinder Kumar @ Virender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and another, CRM7M7 4255172021 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 subject to a deposit of 15% of the cheque amount of Rs.21,00,000/7 as costs with the Day Care Centre for Elderly Disabled in home for Old and Destitute People, Sector 15, Chandigarh, the impugned FIR No..0676 dated
26.04.2023 under Section 1747A IPC registered at Police Station Karnal Civil Lines, District Karnal (Annexure P71) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner only.
, , 0 '- sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No