Rahul Soni v. State Of Haryana And Another
"# $!%&'&"()* +*
Rahul Soni ...... Petitioner V/s State of Haryana and anr.
...Respondents
, - * . . .
Present:
Mr. Mohit Kakkar, 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 order dated 03.04.2023 whereby the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person and the FIR No.360 dated 14.04.2023 under Section 1745A IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Sirsa, District Sirsa (P51) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom because the main i.e. complaint bearing No.NACT/530/2022 dated 28.03.2023 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act stands settled.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted against the accused5 petitioner/Rahul Soni at the instance of the complainant/respondent No.25 Anish Arora. As the petitioner/accused5 Rahul Soni did not appear before the Trial Court to face trial, he was declared as a proclaimed person vide
impugned order dated 03.04.2023. Subsequently, the FIR No. 360 dated 14.04.2023 under Section 1745A IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Sirsa, District Sirsa (P51) came to be registered against the petitioner.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused5Rahul Soni approached to the complainant5respondent No.2/Anish Arora and compromised the matter. Thereafter, on 03.07.2023, the complainant5respondent No.2/Anish Arora moved an application for withdrawal of the complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act as the matter was settled between the parties. Therefore, the Trial Court passed an award in terms of the compromise effected between the parties and the file was consigned to the record room. In view of the award/order dated 03.07.2023 passed by the Trial Court based on the compromise effected between the parties, the present petition has been filed for quashing of the aforesaid impugned order dated 03.04.2023, the FIR No.360 dated 14.04.2023 under Section 1745A IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Sirsa, District Sirsa (P51) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
4.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was compromised between the parties. On 03.07.2023, the complainant moved an application for withdrawal of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the Trial Court as a compromised has been effected and prayed that an award be passed accordingly. Based on the said application, the Trial Court passed an award in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties vide order dated 03.07.2023.
5.
The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the FIR had been correctly registered.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper5book.
7. From the above5said 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. An award has been passed in complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of a compromise effected between the parties.
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"(
(
)
&
& "
"
$% (
( (
"
) +++++++++ * )
2 & 2
"" &
)
2
( 3" 4
& %& ')
#$
% !
!
# & '
(
&
( 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 &"
"
$%!
( (
" $"" &
)
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 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have culminated in a settlement on the basis of which an award dated 03.07.2023 has been passed by the Trial Court.
13. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and subject to a deposit of Rs.25,000/5 as costs with the Sadhna Society for the Mentally Handicapped, Near Housing Board Chowk, Raen Basera Building Manimajra, Sector 13, Chandigarh the impugned order dated 03.04.2023, FIR No.360 dated 14.04.2023 under Section 1745A IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Sirsa, District Sirsa (P51) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner only.
. .
232'
)/
sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No