Sanjay Gambhir v. State Of Haryana
!"
#$ %"&'('#) *++*
Sanjay Gambhir ...... Petitioner V/s State of Haryana
...Respondents
, - * . . .
Present:
Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate with Mr. Nitesh Jhajhria, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Vipul Sherwal, AAG, Haryana.
***** . .
/
*
0 1 This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the impugned FIR No.208 of 2019 dated 12.04.2019 under Section 1744A IPC registered at Police Station Faridabad Central, District Faridabad (Annexure P41) as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2.
The brief facts of the case are that the complainant4Mehar Chand alongwith his relatives had sold total 22 kanal 10 marlas of land in favour of the accused vide a registered sale deed No.20172 dated 10.03.2006 and in respect of the share of the complainant, accused issued a cheque bearing No.657036 dated 30.04.2006 for a sum of Rs.2,35,97,500/4 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, New Rajender Nagar, New Delhi. The said
cheque was dishonoured and consequently, a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act was filed by the complainant. In the said complaint, the parties had arrived at a settlement. Pursuant thereto, the accused issued another cheque bearing No.863532 dated 30.04.2007 for a sum of Rs.2,35,97,500/4 Drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, New Rajender Nagar, New Delhi in favour of the complainant. On presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured with the remarks insufficient funds' vide a bank memo dated 08.09.2007. On assurance of the accused, the complainant presented the same cheque once again for encashment but it was again dishonoured due to 'insufficient funds' vide bank memo dated 25.10.2007. A legal notice was served upon the accused to make the aforesaid payment in the stipulated period of 15 days, leading to initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3.
In the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the complainant/respondent, the accused No.2/petitioner4Sanjay Gambhir being the authorized signatory of accused No.14DD Merchant Bankers Limited, was summoned to face trial. The evidence was led and ultimately, the accused/petitioner was held guilty and accordingly, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay the said compensation of Rs.2,75,00,000/4 to the complainant4respondent within one month from
passing of the order and in default of payment of the compensation amount, to further undergo SI for a period of 03 months. 4.
Aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused No.2/appellant4Sanjay Gambhir (present petitioner) and the accused No.1/D.D. Merchant Bankers Limited through its authorized representative Shri Tarun Kumar preferred two separate appeals bearing Nos. CRA49942017 and in CRA49842014 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fardiabad which came to be dismissed vide a common judgment dated 25.03.2019 (Annexure P418). As the accused No.2/appellant4Sanjay Gambhir (the present petitioner) failed to appear before the Appellate Court, he was declared a proclaimed person vide a separate order dated 25.03.2019 (Annexure P417). Consequently, the FIR No.208 dated 12.04.2019 under Section 1744A IPC, Police Station Faridabad Central, Fardiabad (Annexure P41) came to be registered against the accused4petitioner/Sanjay Gambhir. 5.
The aforesaid FIR No.208 dated 12.04.2019 (Annexure P41) is impugned in the present petition and sought to be quashed. 6.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the proceeding pending before this Court, the parties have arrived at a compromise, pursuant to which, vide order of even date passed in the connected petition bearing No.CRR495342019 titled as ''Sanjay Gambhir versus Mehar Chand' the prayer for compounding of offence under Section 138 N.I. Act has been allowed and the accused4petitioner/Sanjay Gambhir has been acquitted. He, therefore, prays that the present petition
ought to be allowed and the impugned FIR (Annexure P41) under Section 1744A IPC is liable to be quashed.
7.
The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the impugned FIR (Annexure P41) has rightly been registered.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper4book.
9. From the above4said facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the impugned FIR (Annexure P41) was ordered to be registered during the pendency of the proceeding in the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26/31.03.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad. The offence under Section 138 N.I. Act stands compounded and the accused4petitioner has been acquitted vide order of the even date passed in the connected revision petition bearing No.CRR4 95342019 on the basis of a compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties.
9. A co4ordinate Bench of this Court in titled as "
decided on 29.01.2019 has held as under:4
!"
#$
%
"!
!"
# & "
'
( "
)
(
% *) "
"
)
+++++++++ , "
" (
% !
"
#$% &' ($% )
&-./ ,$ 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 1744A 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 co4ordinate 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 1744A 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 1744A IPC. 11.
Another co4ordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled as "/!
reported as
() ( "
)0has also held as under:4 ( &
"
* 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 1744A 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, CRM4M4 587842022 decided on 06.04.2022", "Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar and another, CRM4M4575542022 decided on 06.04.2022" and "Varinder Kumar @ Virender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and another, CRM4M4 4255142021 decided on 19.04.2022".
13.
In the present case, the proceedings arising out of a judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26/31.03.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad and the judgment dated 25.03.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, have culminated into a settlement in connected petition bearing No.CRR495342019 with the compounding of offence under Section 138 N.I. Act and acquittal of the accused4petitioner.
14. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and subject to a deposit of Rs.50,000/4 as costs with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority4Disaster Relief Fund, Account No.44426937384, IFSC Code:SBIN0014656, State Bank of India, Sector 68, SAS Nagar, the impugned FIR No.208 of 2019 dated 12.04.2019 under Section 1744A IPC registered at Police Station Faridabad Central, District Faridabad (Annexure
P41) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner only.
15.
The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
. .
#2"34"0
/
sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No