Mayank Alias Mayank Chauhan v. State Of Haryana And Another
!
"# $!%&'&"()*+ +
Mayank @ Mayank Chauhan ...... Petitioner V/s State of Haryana and anr.
...Respondents
, - + . . .
Present:
Mr. Gajender Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana.
***** . .
/
+
0 1 This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.0205 of 12.06.2023 under Section 1748A IPC registered at Police Station Faridabad Old (Annexure P85) 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 petitioner8 Mayank @ Mayank Chauhan being the authorized signatory of Collobo Ecom Pvt. Ltd., Block H8189, Sector 63, Noida (Uttar Pradesh) at the instance of the complainant8respondent No.2/Baljeet Singh. As the petitioner/accused did not appear before the Trial Court to face trial, he was declared as a proclaimed person vide order dated 29.05.2023
(Annexure P84). Subsequently, the impugned FIR No.0205 of 12.06.2023 under Section 1748A IPC, Police Station Faridabad Old (Annexure P85) came to be registered against the petitioner.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused approached to the complainant/respondent No.2, compromised the matter and the payment of the cheque amount was made to the complainant. Thereafter, on 05.02.2024, complainant8Baljeet Singh suffered a statement before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridaband that he had received the cheque amount from the accused and therefore, he did not want to pursue the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Therefore, the complaint in question was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure P87). 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 the aforesaid FIR No. 0205 of 12.06.2023 (Annexure P85) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 4.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was compromised between the parties and the petitioner8 accused had made the payment of the entire cheque amount to the complainant. On 05.02.2024, the complainant got recorded a statement before the Trial Court that since he had received the payment of the cheque amount, he did not want to proceed further with the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and wanted to withdraw the same. Based on the said statement, the
complaint was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure P87).
5.
The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the FIR had been correctly registered.
6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper8book.
7. From the above8said facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the present FIR was registered during the pendency of the proceeding under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. The complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 itself has been withdrawn.
8. A co8ordinate Bench of this Court in titled as "
decided on 29.01.2019 has held as under:8
!"
#$
%
"!
!"
# & "
'
)
(
% *) "
"
)
+++++++++ , "
" (
% !
"
#$% &' ($% )
&-./ ,$ 0& *+$
,* - "
-.
/%-% / 1
. '
-./ ,$
) " ""2
"&
%
"
2
!"
.0
$"
)
) *) 2"(
2 ( )
&
& " !"
$%
(
( (
"
) +++++++++ *)
2& 2
"" & )
2
(3" 4
&
%
& "
' )
!"
#$
% "!
!"
# & "
'
&
(
5 9.
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. 10.
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
" &" !"
$%!
((
"
" $"" &
)
0
&
!"
$%$ " !
6 ) & 7
"
(& )
"
5 11.
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".
12.
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.
13. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and subject to a deposit of Rs.25,000/8 as costs with the Sadhna Society for the Mentally Handicapped, Near Housing Board Chowk, Raen Basera Building Manimajra, Sector 13, Chandigarh, the impugned FIR No.0205 of 12.06.2023 under Section 1748A IPC registered at Police Station Faridabad Old (Annexure P85) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner only.
. .
213
)*/
sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No