Umesh Kumar Jain v. State Of Haryana And ANR

264 (9)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.08.2023 Umesh Kumar Jain ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Present:- Mr. Pardhuman Garg, Advocate, Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate & Mr. Parvez Chugh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Karan Garg, AAG, Haryana.

None for respondent No. 2.

***** ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of order dated 27.04.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad in Complaint No. NACT/5699/2015 dated 14.12.2015 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act), whereby petitioner was declared as proclaimed person and FIR No.0451 dated 07.05.2018 (Annexure P-2), registered under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), at Police Station Ballabhgarh City, District Faridabad against the petitioner arising from order dated 27.04.2017 (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that matter stands settled as entire cheque amount has been paid to complainant and complaint case under Section 138 of the Act has also been withdrawn vide order dated 15.09.2018 (Annexure P-4) by the complainant. He further contends that no useful purpose

would be served by keeping the present proceedings under Section 174A of IPC, pending.

3.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer made and submits that order declaring petitioner as proclaimed person has rightly been passed. He further submits that the offence under Section 174A IPC is independent of the main case.

4.

None appears on behalf of respondent No. 2 despite service, which is, thus, deemingly suggestive that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR in question.

5.

Arguments heard.

6.

The complaint against the petitioner was for an offence under Section 138 of the Act.

7.

Vide order dated 27.04.2017 (Annexure P-1), learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad recorded its satisfaction that the accusedpetitioner had absconded, declared him proclaimed offender and directed that intimation be sent to the concerned police station to initiate proceeding against him under section 174-A of IPC. Aforesaid FIR was thus registered. In my opinion, the order for registering an FIR itself is not sustainable and fatal to the FIR for the reasons stated hereinafter.

8.

Reference may be had to judgment rendered by me in Pardeep Kumar versus State of Punjab and another1 passed in CRM-M-41656-2023 (O&M) decided on 23.08.2023 wherein I have, inter alia, opined that the offence under Section 174-A of IPC falls within the scope Section 195(1) (a)(i) of the Code ibid which provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. 2023 Live Law (PH) 181

Further, it was held that if after declaring an individual as a "proclaimed person" or "proclaimed offender," the Court decides to proceed against him for an offence under section 174-A of IPC, it has to institute a formal written complaint in the competent jurisdictional court and that the order passed for registering FIR and the FIR so registered in such case were not sustainable in law. 9.

In the present case, proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC were not initiated as per guidelines and ratio laid down in Pardeep Kumar judgment ibid. As an upshot, it is held that the judgment and order dated 27.04.2017 passed by the learned Magistrate is not sustainable on that ground alone. Neither there is any compliance of the relevant statutory requirements in letter and spirit, for declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person/offender, nor is the impugned judgment of trial court in terms of the guidelines laid in Pardeep Kumar judgment. For the sake of brevity, the guidelines laid down in Pardeep Kumar judgment are not being reproduced and the same may be referred therefrom. The requisite application of mind by the Court while invoking criminal liability of the petitioner for offence under Section 174-A of IPC is also lacking herein. The said initial order dated 27.04.2017 itself which formed the basis of the registration of the FIR under Section 174-A of IPC against the petitioner and subsequent trial are bad in law.

10.

As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the entire cheque amount was paid to the complainant and the complaint under section 138 of the Act was withdrawn vide order dated 15.09.2018 (Annexure P-4). On withdrawal of the complaint and termination of it's proceedings against the petitioner, the requirement for his appearance in Court also came to an end. 11.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are liable to be quashed.

12.

Accordingly, order dated 27.04.2017 (Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside and FIR No.0451 dated 07.05.2018 (Annexure P-2), registered under Section 174-A of the IPC, at Police Station Ballabgarh City, District Faridabad as well as other consequential proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner, are quashed.

13.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (ARUN MONGA) JUDGE 29.08.2023 Harish Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No