Parmal Singh v. State Of Punjab

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant, Narinder Singh, had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging dishonour of a cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- issued by the petitioner. During the pendency of the complaint, the petitioner could not be served and was declared a proclaimed person, on the basis of which FIR No.162 dated 12.06.2023 under Section 174-A IPC was registered at Police Station City Rajpura. He further submits that the

petitioner was subsequently granted bail and later convicted by the learned trial Court, against which he preferred an appeal. During appeal proceedings, the matter was amicably settled between the parties and the case was referred to the National Lok Adalat, which on 14.12.2024 allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner in view of the compromise. He contends that since the petitioner has already been acquitted, hence continuation of the proceedings declaring the petitioner proclaimed person and subsequent FIR under would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, prayer is made for quashing of the aforesaid FIR and all consequential proceedings. 3.

Learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person due to his non-appearance, pursuant to which FIR under Section 174-A IPC was validly registered. It is contended that the offence is independent in nature and the subsequent compromise and acquittal in the complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act does not absolve the petitioner of his liability for evading Court proceedings.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5.

The object behind issuance of non-bailable warrants or proclamation is only to secure the presence of the accused and in the present case, the petitioner has already been acquitted. 6.

In the present case, since the petitioner has already been acquitted and the main complaint has been finally decided, the FIR under Section 174-A IPC cannot continue. Once the main case has ended, the basis

of the order dated 21.01.2023 (Annexure P-2), passed by the learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura, declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person in case COMA-53/2017 dated 01.02.2017, no longer survives. Consequently, order dated 21.01.2023 (Annexure P-2) and FIR No.162 dated 12.06.2023 (Annexure P-3), registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station City Rajpura, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed being not sustainable in law.