Baldev Pahwa v. State Of Haryana
!
"#$ %& '$()*)%+ ,,
Baldev Pahwa ...... Petitioner V/s State of Haryana
...Respondent
- .
,
/
/ /
Present:
Mr. Manan Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Goel, DAG, Haryana.
*****
/ / 0
, 1"2 This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.0489 dated 05.06.2019 under Section 1745A IPC registered at Police Station Karnal City, District Karnal, Haryana 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 petitioner/accused at the instance of the complainant/Vijay Kumar Sethi. As the petitioner/accused did not appear before the Trial Court to face trial, he was declared as a proclaimed person as per the order dated 13.05.2019 (Annexure P52) pursuant to which an FIR under Section 1745A IPC had been ordered to be registered against him in complaint bearing NACT No.2002 of 2018 pending before the JMIC, Karnal.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused approached to the complainant, compromised the matter and paid the entire due amount to the complainant5Vijay Kumar Sethi. Thereafter, the complainant appeared before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal and suffered a statement that as the matter had been settled between the parties and the amount in question had been received from the accused5petitioner, he did not want to proceed further with the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and withdrew the same. Therefore, the complaint in question was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.11.2019 (Annexure P53). 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 aforesaid FIR No.0489 dated 05.06.2019 under Section 1745A IPC, Police Station Karnal City, District Karnal, Haryana (Annexure P51) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
4.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR came to be registered against the petitioner due to his non5appearance in the aforementioned complaint. Thereafter, the matter was compromised between the parties and the petitioner5 accused had made the payment of the entire due amount to the complainant. On 30.11.2019, the complainant got recorded his statement before the Trial Court that since the matter had been compromised between the parties and he had received the entire due amount, therefore, he did not want to proceed further with the complaint and wanted
to withdraw the same. Based on the said statement, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.11.2019 (Annexure P52). 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 petitioner and the learned State counsel and has perused the paper5book.
7. From the above5said 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 impugned complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 itself has been withdrawn.
8. A co5ordinate Bench of this Court in titled as "
decided on 29.01.2019 has held as under:5
!"
#$
%
"!
!"
# & "
'
)
(
% *) "
"
)
+++++++++ , "
" (
% !
"
#$% &' ($% )
&-./ ,$ 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 1745A 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 co5ordinate 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 1745A 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 1745A IPC. 10.
Another co5ordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled as "/!
reported as
() ( "
)0has also held as under:5 ( &
"
* 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 1745A 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, CRM5M5 587852022 decided on 06.04.2022", "Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar
and another, CRM5M5575552022 decided on 06.04.2022" and "Varinder Kumar @ Virender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and another, CRM5M5 4255152021 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 the impugned FIR No.0489 dated 05.06.2019 under Section 1745A IPC registered at Police Station Karnal City, District Karnal, Haryana and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner only.
/ /
31)2 0
sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No