The withdrawal of the main complaint under Sections 138/141 of the Act of 1881 due to a compromise between the parties renders the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC an abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar in Criminal Complaint No.NACT-1242-2020 dated 04.06.2020 titled as Archna Soni Vs. M/s Success Graph & other under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1881') as well as quashing of FIR No.574 dated 11.10.2021 registered under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the IPC') at Police Station Hisar City, District Hisar, Haryana as the main complaint has already been withdrawn by respondent No.2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, a complaint under Sections 138/141 of the Act of 1881 was filed by Archana Soni against the present petitioner with respect to dishonour of three cheques amounting to Rs.45,000/- each and has further submitted that the petitioner was illegally declared proclaimed person in the proceedings of the said case vide order dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure P-7) on account of her non-appearance. It is argued that Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, vide order dated 04.10.2021 had directed the SHO concerned to register an FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC and accordingly, the impugned FIR has been registered under 174-A of the IPC. It is further argued that now the matter has been compromised and the complainant-Archana Soni had withdrawn complaint filed under Sections 138/141 of the Act of 1881 vide order dated 21.12.2021 (Annexure P-10).

3. Notice of motion to respondent No.1 only.

4. On advance notice, Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the State/respondent No.1 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 registered in accordance with law inasmuch as the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person vide order dated 04.10.2021 and the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar had directed the SHO concerned to register an FIR.

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 p