The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of amicable settlements between parties and the abuse of process of law in continuing proceedings after withdrawal of the main petition.

JUDGMENT

ORDER

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral). - This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 07.06.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jhajjar in Complaint case No.COMA/273/2017 dated 19.08.2017 (Annexure P-2) vide which the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person in the aforesaid complaint.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.1, namely, Jitender Kumar had lodged an FIR No.26 dated 14.01.2015 registered under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC at Police Station Jhajjar against Anil i.e. husband of the petitioner and her sister-in-law Seema. Ultimately, a compromise was arrived in between the parties and in pursuance of the compromise, the husband of the petitioner handed over three post dated cheques i.e. Cheques No.010352 dated 20.04.2017, 010354 dated 20.05.2017 and 536839 dated 20.06.2017 for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/-, respectively. Anil Kumar along with his sister also filed a petition bearing CRM-M-9004-2017 for quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise. It is however submitted that the husband of the petitioner could not arrange the money and ultimately, this Court was pleased to dismiss the quashing petition as infructuous at that stage. However, liberty was granted to file the fresh petition on the basis of compromise, if the contesting party still acknowledges the compromise in accordance with law. He contends that the cheques in question were dishonoured and the complainant lodged three separate complaints on account of all three cheques under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was summoned in the said complaint and during the pendency of the complaint in question, though the petitioner wanted to settle the dispute with the complainant- respondent No.1, however, the petitioner could not arrange the money and the petitioner also could not appear before concerned court in the said case. Ultimately, the husband of the petitioner arranged the money and again settled the matter with the complainant. It is however, submitted that on 07.06.2018, the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jhajjar. It is also submitted that on 14.06.2018, the petitioner had met with an accident and she remained admitted in hospital for about 20 days and she had been operated upon thrice and her follow up treatment continued upto 05.10.2020. It is further submitted that the matter was fixed for 05.01.2022 and the complainant appeared and made a statement that he does not want to pursue the complaint as he has entered into compromise with the accused-Sunita. It is also submitted that the petitioner was never served in the said proceedings and she learnt about the said proceedings only after the police raided her house, after being declared as a proclaimed person. On learning about the same, the petitioner compromised the matter with the complainant/respondent No.1. He has further submitted that the matter has already been compromised pursuant to which, the complainant had appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jhajjar on 05.01.2022 and made a statement qua the same (P-4) and (P-5), whereupon the complaint in question has been permitted to be withdrawn (P-6).

3. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.1 has not disputed the facts as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has further submitted that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have already been withdrawn and the matter has been compromised. He also stated that he has no objection in case the present FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

4. The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the FIR has been correctly registered.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel and h