Continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC is an abuse of the process of law when the main complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is withdrawn due to a compromise.

ORDER

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. - This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.56 dated 12.06.2017 registered under Section 174-A IPC (Annexure P-1) at Police Station Cantt. Ferozepur, District Ferozepur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the order dated 17.03.2018 whereby the charges under Section 174-A IPC have been framed against the petitioner in view of the fact that the main complaint under Section 138 NI Act was withdrawn by the complainant/respondent No.2 vide order dated 21.08.2018 (Annexure P-6) as the matter was compromised between the parties.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.2 had filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act bearing No.NACT/487/2015 (CNR No.PBFZ03-001342-2015) titled as 'Kunwar Partap Versus Narinder' under Sections 138, 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur. It is further stated that the petitioner was summoned to appear before the learned Trial Court in the above titled complaint case but the petitioner failed to appear before the learned Trial Court. It is also submitted that talks had already been going on between the parties to the above titled complaint. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 11.03.2014 issued the proclamation regarding requiring the appearance of the accused/petitioner under Section 82 Cr.P.C. for 13.04.2014. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 15.04.2014 had declared the petitioner as absconder and sent the intimation in this regard to the Police Station concerned as well as to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur to take necessary action against the accused/petitioner under Section 174-A IPC. Thereafter, in an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the learned Sessions Court, Ferozepur directed the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer and join the investigation vide order dated 10.08.2017. Accordingly, the present petitioner joined the investigation in view of the order dated 10.08.2017 and thereafter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated 06.09.2017 allowed the grant of anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed before the learned Trial Court and charges under Section 174-A IPC have been framed against the petitioner vide order dated 17.03.2018 (Annexure P-5). Meanwhile, in the aforesaid complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by respondent No.2, a compromise has been effected between the parties and the statements of the parties with regard to the factum of compromise had also been recorded before the learned Trial Court. In view of that compromise, the complaint stands dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.08.2018 (Annexure P-6), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ferozepur. It is further contended that no other complaint is filed by the complainant/respondent No.2 against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was never served in the said proceedings and he learnt about the said proceedings only after the police raided his house, after being declared as absconder. On learning about the same, the petitioner compromised the matter with the complainant/respondent No.2. 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, Ferozepur on 21.08.2018 and made a statement qua the same (P-6), whereupon the complaint in question has been permitted to be withdrawn.

3. Initially, the respondent No.2 was represented but now none has appeared on his behalf.

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

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel and has p