Jasmer v. State Of Haryana And Another
!
"# $!%&'&"( ) )
Jasmer ...... Petitioner V/s State of Haryana and anr.
...Respondents
* + ) , , ,
Present:
Mr. Sunny Tyagi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1.
***** , ,
-
)
. / This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 26.09.2022 (Annexure P41) and the FIR No.731 dated 10.11.2022 under Section 1744A IPC registered at Police Station Sector 8, Distt. Faridabad (Annexure P42) as well as all 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 accused4 petitioner/Jasmer at the instance of the complainant4respondent No.2/Hemant Singh. As the petitioner/accused did not appear before the Trial Court to face trial, he was declared as a proclaimed person vide impugned order dated 26.09.2022 (Annexure P41). Subsequently, the FIR
No.731 dated 10.11.2022 under Section 1744A IPC, Police Station Sector 8, Distt. Faridabad (Annexure P42) came to be registered against the petitioner.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused4Jasmer approached to the complainant4Hemant Singh and compromised the matter. Thereafter, on 13.02.2024, complainant4Hemant Singh suffered a statement before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad that he had compromised the matter with the accused and therefore, he wanted to withdraw the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . Therefore, the complaint in question was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.02.2024 (Annexure P43). In view of the dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of the compromise, the present petition has been filed for quashing of the aforesaid impugned order dated 26.09.2022 (Annexure P41) and the FIR No. 731 dated 10.11.2022 under Section 1744A IPC registered at Police Station Sector 8, Distt. Faridabad (Annexure P42) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
4.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was compromised between the parties. On 13.02.2024, the complainant got recorded a statement before the Trial Court that since he had compromised the matter with the accused, 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 27.02.2024 (Annexure P43).
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 paper4book.
7. From the above4said facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the present FIR was registered during the pendency of the proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act itself has been withdrawn.
8. 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 9.
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.
10.
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 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 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".
12.
In the present case the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 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.25,000/4 as costs with the Day Care Centre for Elderly Disabled in home for Old and Destitute People, Sector 15, Chandigarh, the impugned order dated 26.09.2022 (Annexure P41), FIR No.731 dated 10.11.2022 under Section 1744A IPC registered at Police Station Sector 8, District Faridabad (Annexure P42) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner only.
, ,
010'
-
sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No