The withdrawal of the main case due to a compromise renders the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC an abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT

ORDER

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.580 dated 07.09.2021 registered under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the IPC') at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, M/s NKC Projects Private Limited had filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1881') against three accused persons including the present petitioner. It is further submitted that in the said case, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person vide order dated 27.04.2013 (Annexure P-2) and the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon had directed the police to initiate proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC against the petitioner. It is contended that in the said matter, the compromise was effected and the entire money due was paid to the complainant and accordingly, vide order dated 27.05.2015 (Annexure P-4), the complainant withdrew the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. It is further contended that after a period of six years, the present FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC has been registered in order to implement the abovesaid order dated 27.04.2013. It is argued that the petitioner had moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon for cancellation of the proceedings but the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon, after considering that the matter has been compromised had observed that the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, could not quash the FIR and accordingly, the present petition has been filed.

3. Notice of motion.

4. On advance notice, Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the State and has submitted that he is fully prepared to argue the matter and assist this Court. He has opposed the present petition and submitted that the FIR has been rightly registered in pursuance of order dated 27.04.2013 (Annexure P-2).

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.

6. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-43813-2018 titled as 'Baldev Chand Bansal vs. State of Haryana and another', decided on 29.01.2019 has held as under:-

'Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017 filed under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof as well as order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the trial Court vide which a direction was issued to register the aforesaid FIR.

xxx xxx xxx

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by this Court in ' Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another (supra), 2017, (3) L.A.R.584, Microqual Techno Limited and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2015 (32) RCR (Crl.) 790 and 'Rajneesh Khanna Vs. State of Haryana and another' 2017(3) L.A.R. 555 wherein in an identical circumstance, this Court has held that since the main petition filed under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties, therefore, continuation of proceedings under Section 174A of IPC shall be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

xxx xxx xxx

In view of the same, I find merit in the present petition and accordingly, present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.10.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Panchkula as well as FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017 registered under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, are hereby quashed.'

7. A perusal of the above judgment would show that in a similar case where the FIR had been registered under Section 174-A of the IPC in view of the order passed in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, while decl