Jaspinder Singh v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24521-2024 Date of decision: May 16th, 2024 Jaspinder Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Varun Dutta, Advocate for the petitioner.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 13.02.2023 passed in NACT No.201 of 2021 by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal, whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person and FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC was ordered to be registered against him i.e. FIR No.1670 dated 04.12.2023 at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has drawn the attention of this Court to order dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure P-14), wherein it stands reflected that in view of a statement made by the counsel for the complainant, the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI Act') was dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of a compromise. A prayer, therefore, has been made that in the aforementioned facts and circumstances, no purpose would be served by prosecuting the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Sher Singh vs. State of Haryana (CRM-M-11846-2023) decided on 09.03.2023, wherein in PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.05.16 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-24521-2024 -2identical facts and circumstances, the FIR registered under Section 174A of the IPC against the petitioner was quashed. 3.

Notice of motion.

4.

On asking of the Court, Ms. Trishanjali Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

5.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by the counsel opposite and contended that it was evident that the petitioner had intentionally not appeared during the proceedings before the Court below and hence, the prayer of the petitioner deserved to be declined. 6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.

7.

The petitioner was declared a proclaimed person in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act. Admittedly, the said complaint was withdrawn after the parties arrived at a compromise. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings for offence under Section 174-A of the IPC would serve no useful purpose. 8.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR registered under Section 174-A of the IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

May 16th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.05.16 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh