High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/26396/2024disposed of

Nitin Jain v. State Of Haryana And Another

2024-05-24Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi8 pages

"# $!%&'&"( ) *)

Nitin Jain ...... Petitioner V/s State of Haryana and anr.

...Respondents

+ , ) - - -

Present:

Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

Ms. Diksha Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** - -

)

/0 This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.182 dated 05.11.2019 under Section 1748A IPC registered at Police Station B.P.T.P., Faridabad (Annexure P86) as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the final report dated 10.04.2021 under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P89) presented in case No.CHI/1990/2021 titled as 'State versus Nitin Jain' and order dated 18.10.2019 (Annexure P85) whereby the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person in a criminal complaint bearing registration CIS No.NACT/4220/2016 (complaint No.RBT81473 of 2016) titled as 'M/s Sri Hydraulics versus M/s Jai Gurudev Enterprises Etc.'.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted against the accused8 petitioner/Nitin Jain being the Proprietor of M/s Jai Gurudev Enterprises at the instance of the complainant8respondent No.2/Ritu Bhatia, Proprietor of M/s Sri Hydraulics. Initially, the accused8petitioner had put in appearance before the Trial Court and was granted the concession of bail. Thereafter, the petitioner did not appear and vide order dated 04.07.2017 his bail was cancelled and surety bonds stood forfeited to the State. Ultimately, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person by the Trial Court vide order dated 27.09.2018, pursuant to which an FIR bearing No.36 dated 07.10.2018 under Section 1748A IPC, Police Station B.P.T.P., Faridabad had been ordered to be registered against the petitioner. The said FIR stands quashed vide order dated 09.05.2024 passed by this Court in CRM8M82299382024 (Annexure P815).

On 26.11.2018, the petitioner appeared before the Trial Court and submitted an application for surrender8cum8bail. Subsequently, he was released on bail vide order dated 26.11.2018 (Annexure P82) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad. Thereafter, on 20.08.2019, the petitioner did not appear before the Trial Court and his bail order was again cancelled by vide order dated 20.08.2019. On 18.10.2019, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person vide order, Annexure P85 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, pursuant to which, the present FIR bearing No.0182 dated

05.11.2019 under Section 1748A IPC, Police Station B.P.T.P., Faridabad (Annexure P86) had been ordered to be registered against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested and granted bail vide order dated 02.03.2021 passed the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad. He faced Trial and on conclusion thereof came to be convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and was directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.22,00,000/8 to the complainant/respondent No.2.

Aggrieved against the said judgment dated 04.03.2021 passed by the Trial Court, the accused8petitioner preferred an appeal bearing No.CRA/66/2021. In the meantime, a final report dated 10.04.2021 under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P89) was presented in the FIR No.182 dated 05.11.2019 under Section 1748A IPC (Annexure P86). 4.

During the pendency of the proceedings in the appeal i.e. CRA/66/2021, the petitioner/accused approached the complainant and compromised the matter, pursuant to which an application seeking leave to compound the offence was filed on 06.03.2024. The aforesaid application was accepted by the Appellate Court and vide order dated 07.03.2024, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stood compounded. A copy of the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Faridabad is attached as Annexure P812 to the present petition. 5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR came to be registered against the petitioner due to his non8appearance

during the course of the Trial in the complaint under Section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Thereafter, the matter was compromised between the parties and the offence under Section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stood compounded in terms of the judgment dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Faridabad. 6.

The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the FIR had been correctly registered. 7.

The learned counsel for the complainant8respondent No.2 accepts the factum of compromise having been arrived at between the parties and has no objection if the FIR in question and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper8book.

9. From the above8said 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 judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.03.2021 passed by the Trial Court has been set aside and the offence in question stands compounded in terms of the judgment dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure P812) passed by the Sessions Judge, Faridabad.

10. A co8ordinate Bench of this Court in titled as "

decided on 29.01.2019 has held as under:8

# & "

( "

)

(

% *) "

)

+++++++++ , "

" (

% !

#$% &' ($% )

&-./ ,$ 0& *+$

,* - "

/%-% /1

. '

-./ ,$

) " ""2

)

) *) 2"(

2 ( )

& " " !"

(

( (

) +++++++++ *)

2& 2

"" & )

(3" 4

& "

' )

% "!

# & "

( "

(

11.

A perusal of the above judgment would show that in a similar case where the FIR had been registered under Section 1748A 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 co8ordinate 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 1748A 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 1748A IPC. 12.

Another co8ordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled as "/!

reported as

() ( "

)0has also held as under:8 ( &

* 2

" !"

2 " &

& 2 ("

2 " ( 2

)

" &

" ( )&

)*&' *)

)

"" ( " 2

2 " ) "

( ( (

" ) (

" "

""2

" &" " !"

$%!

((

$"" &

)

$%$ " !

6 ) & 7

(& )

" "

5 13.

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 1748A 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, CRM8M8 587882022 decided on 06.04.2022", "Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar and another, CRM8M8575582022 decided on 06.04.2022" and "Varinder Kumar @ Virender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and another, CRM8M8 4255182021 decided on 19.04.2022".

14.

In the present case the proceedings under Section 138 NI Act have culminated in a settlement with the compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in terms of the judgment dated 07.03.2024 (Annere P812).

13. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and subject to a deposit of Rs.25,000/8 as costs with Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chandigarh, Account No.65035682434, SBI High Court Branch, IFSC:8SBIN0050306, the impugned FIR No.182 dated 05.11.2019 under Section 1748A IPC registered at Police Station B.P.T.P., Faridabad (Annexure P86) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the final report dated 10.04.2021 under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

(Annexure P89) presented in case No.CHI/1990/2021 titled as 'State versus Nitin Jain' and order dated 18.10.2019 (Annexure P85) whereby the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person in a criminal complaint bearing registration CIS No.NACT/4220/2016 (complaint No.RBT81473 of 2016) titled as 'M/s Sri Hydraulics versus M/s Jai Gurudev Enterprises Etc are hereby quashed qua the petitioner only.

- -

1 .

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