Kuldeep Alais Kuldeep Sharma Alias Kuldeep Kumar v. State Of Haryana
!"
# $%&%!'()*)
Kuldeep @ Kuldeep Sharma @ Kuldeep Kumar ...... Petitioner V/s State of Haryana
...Respondent
+, ) - - -
Present:
Mr. Sudhir Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.
***** - - .
)
/ 0 The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the order dated 09.05.2019 (Annexure P11) whereby the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender, the consequential FIR No.1399 dated 29.07.2019 under Section 1741A IPC, Police Station Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram, District Gurugram (Annexure P14) and the order framing charges dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure P15).
2.
The brief facts of the case are that M/s India Infoline Housing Limited had filed a private complaint under Section 25 of the Payments and Settlements System Act, 2007 through its authorized person against the petitioner titled as 'M/s India Infoline Housing Finance Limited versus
Kuldeep Kumar" bearing No.NACT11752 of 2017 dated 31.01.2017 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram. 3.
As the petitioner did not appear in the said proceedings, he was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 09.05.2019 (Annexure P11). 4.
When the petitioner came to know about the pendency of the above complaint (NACT1175212017), he paid the entire cheque amount, effected a settlement, consequent to which the aforesaid complaint was revived vide order dated 02.05.2022 (Annexure P12) and the aforesaid complaint came to be withdrawn vide order dated 14.05.2022 (Annexure P13).
5.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR came to be registered against the petitioner due to his non1appearance in the aforementioned complaint. Thereafter, the matter was compromised between the parties and the petitioner1 accused/Kuldeep @ Kuldeep Sharma @ Kuldeep Kumar had made the payment of the entire due amount to the complainant1company. On 02.05.2022, the learned counsel for the complainant1company appeared before the Trial Court and got recorded his statement that 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 Based on the said statement, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.05.2022 (Annexure P13). Therefore, the impugned orders were liable to be quashed. 6.
The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the FIR had been correctly registered.
7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel and has perused the paper1book.
8. From the above1said 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 25 of the Payments and Settlements System Act, 2007. The impugned complaint under Section 25 of the Payments and Settlements System Act, 2007 itself has been withdrawn.
9. A co1ordinate Bench of this Court in titled as "
decided on 29.01.2019 has held as under:1
!"
#$
%
"!
!"
# & "
'
)
(
% *) "
"
)
+++++++++ , "
" (
% !
"
#$% &' ($% )
&-./ ,$ 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 1741A 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 co1ordinate 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 1741A 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 1741A IPC.
11.
Another co1ordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled as "/!
reported as
() ( "
)0has also held as under:1 ( &
"
* 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 1741A 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, CRM1M1 587812022 decided on 06.04.2022", "Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar and another, CRM1M1575512022 decided on 06.04.2022" and "Varinder
Kumar @ Virender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and another, CRM1M1 4255112021 decided on 19.04.2022".
13.
In the present case the proceedings under Section 25 of the Payments and Settlements System Act, 2007 have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the complaint under Section 25 of the Payments and Settlements System Act, 2007.
14. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and subject to a deposit of Rs.15,000/1 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 09.05.2019 (Annexure P11) whereby the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender, the consequential FIR No.1399 dated 29.07.2019 under Section 1741A IPC, Police Station Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram, District Gurugram (Annexure P14), the order framing charges dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure P15) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner only.
15.
Since the main petition has been disposed of, no order needs to be passed in the CRM application, if any.
- -
(.
sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No