The withdrawal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to a settlement between the parties led to the quashing of the FIR under Section 174-A.

JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral) - This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No.478 dated 15.06.2022 under Section 174-A registered at Police Station Sirsa City, District Sirsa (Annexure P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted against the petitioner/accused at the instance of the complainant-Sunder Dass. As the petitioner/accused did not appear before the Trial Court to face trial, he was declared as a proclaimed person as per the order dated 08.04.2019 (Annexure P-4) pursuant to which an FIR No. 478 dated 15.06.2022 under Section 174-A at Police Station Sirsa City, District Sirsa (Annexure P-1) came to be registered against him.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused paid the entire cheque amount i.e. Rs.3,50,000/- alongwith the compensation to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application for withdrawal of the complaint and appeared before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa and suffered a statement that he did not want to proceed further with the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and filed an affidavit (Annexure P-5) to that extent. Therefore, the complaint in question was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.08.2022 (Annexure P-6) and the matter was ordered to be taken up by the National Lok Adalat on 13.08.2022 (Annexure P-7). In view of the dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of the compromise, the present petition for quashing of aforesaid FIR No. 478 dated 15.06.2022 under Section 174-A registered at Police Station Sirsa City, District Sirsa (Annexure P-1).

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR came to be registered against the petitioner due to his non-appearance in the aforementioned complaint. Thereafter, the matter was compromised between the parties and the petitioner- accused had made the payment of Rs3,50,000/- to the complainant. On 12.08.2022, the complainant-Sunder Dass got recorded his statement before the Trial Court that since he had received the entire payment of the cheque amount alongwith the compensation, therefore, 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 orders dated 12.08.2022 and 13.08.2022 (Annexures P-6 and P-7 respectively).

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

6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel and has perused the paper-book.

7. From the above-said 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 138 of the Act of 1881. The impugned complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 itself has been withdrawn.

8. 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 circumstan