Vinod Garg v. State Of Punjab
!
"# $!%&'&"( )*)
Vinod Garg ...... Petitioner V/s State of Punjab
...Respondent
+ , ) - - -
Present:
Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Ramta K Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.
***** - -
.
)
/ 0 This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.0106 dated 07.09.2019 under Section 1747A IPC registered at Police Station Phool, District Bathinda (Punjab) (Annexure P79) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC was instituted against the petitioner7Vinod Garg at the instance of the complainant7Dalbir 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 03.07.2019 (Annexure P77). Subsequently, the impugned FIR No.0106 dated 07.09.2019 under Section 1747A IPC at Police Station Phool,
District Bathinda (Annexure P79) came to be registered against the petitioner.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused7Vinod Garg approached to the complainant7Dalbir Singh and compromised the matter. Thereafter, on 20.05.2024, complainant7Dalbir Singh suffered a statement before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phul that he had compromised the matter with the accused and therefore, he did not want to pursue the complaint under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC. Therefore, the complaint in question was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.05.2024 (Annexure P713). In view of the dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC on the basis of the compromise, the present petition has been filed for quashing of the aforesaid FIR No. 0106 dated 07.09.2019 under Section 1747A IPC registered at Police Station Phool, District Bathinda (Punjab) (Annexure P79) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
4.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was compromised between the parties. On 20.05.2024, the complainant got recorded a statement before the Trial Court that since he had compromsed the matter with the accused, he did not want to proceed further with the complaint under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC and wanted to withdraw the same. Based on the said statement, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.05.2024 (Annexure P713).
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 paper7book.
7. From the above7said facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the present FIR was registered during the pendency of the proceeding under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC. The complaint under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC itself has been withdrawn.
8. A co7ordinate Bench of this Court in titled as "
decided on 29.01.2019 has held as under:7
!"
#$
%
"!
!"
# & "
'
)
(
% *) "
"
)
+++++++++ , "
" (
% !
"
#$% &' ($% )
&-./ ,$ 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 1747A 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 co7ordinate 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 1747A 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 1747A IPC.
10.
Another co7ordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled as "/!
reported as
() ( "
)0has also held as under:7 ( &
"
* 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 1747A 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, CRM7M7 587872022 decided on 06.04.2022", "Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar and another, CRM7M7575572022 decided on 06.04.2022" and "Varinder
Kumar @ Virender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and another, CRM7M7 4255172021 decided on 19.04.2022".
12.
In the present case the proceedings under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the aforesaid complaint.
13. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and subject to a deposit of Rs.25,000/7 as costs with the Day Care Centre for Elderly Disabled in home for Old and Destitute People, Sector 15, Chandigarh, the impugned FIR No.0106 dated 07.09.2019 under Section 1747A IPC registered at Police Station Phool, District Bathinda (Punjab) (Annexure P79) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner only.
- -
102
.
sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No