Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.
Sher Singh Rana – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M-20832-2021(O&M)
Decided On : 15-03-2022
Indian Penal Code - Quashing of FIR under Section 174-A - Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 482 CrPC - [Section 174-A IPC, Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 482 CrPC] - The court considered the quashing of an FIR under Section 174-A IPC in light of the settlement of the substantive complaint under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It relied on precedent judgments to establish that once the main case stands settled due to compromise between the parties, the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of the process of law. The court adopted a liberal approach towards the accused, considering the quasi-criminal nature of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the redressal of the complainant's grievance.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of an order declaring him a proclaimed person and the consequential FIR under Section 174-A IPC, as the substantive complaint under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been settled between the parties. The petitioner contended that the proclamation was improper and that the parties had resolved their dispute, rendering the continuation of the FIR unjust.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the petitioner's arguments and allowed the petition, quashing the FIR and setting aside the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person. The court considered the settlement of the substantive complaint and the abuse of the process of law in continuing the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the proclamation, the settlement of the substantive complaint, and the justification for continuing the FIR under Section 174-A IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the settlement of the substantive complaint and the abuse of the process of law in continuing the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC, as established in precedent judgments.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the FIR under Section 174-A IPC, along with all subsequent proceedings, was quashed. The order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person was set aside, subject to the payment of costs to be deposited with the 'Poor Patients Welfare Fund' of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh.
JUDGMENT
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral) - This case has been taken up through Video Conferencing via Webex facility in the light of Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per instructions.
2. The question that arises for consideration in the instant petition is as to whether an FIR under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal code, 1860 can be quashed once the substantive complaint wherefrom the proceedings had emanated itself stand settled amongst the parties?
3. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC for seeking quashing of the order dated 24.07.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala, declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person and of the consequential registration of FIR No.122 dated 16.02.2020 registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, District Ambala (Annexure P4) along with all proceedings arising therefrom.
4. A brief reference to the facts as claimed are that respondent-Ashok Kumar had filed a complaint under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging therein that the petitioner had approached the complainant in June 2016 and induced him to extend a friendly loan of Rs.10 lakhs for a period of two months. A pro-note was duly executed by the petitioner and a post dated cheque bearing No.347069 dated 07.09.2016 amounting to Rs.10 lakhs drawn on State Bank of India, Branch at Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Ambala Cantt was issued in favour of the respondent No.2 to discharge his liability and legally enforceable debt. However, upon presentation of the same, it was dishonored. The same resulted in institution of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is pointed out that despite issuance of summons and warrants, service upon the petitioner could not be affected and eventually vide order dated 24.07.2017 (Annexure-P3), the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person. A further direction was issued to intimate the concerned SHO to register the FIR under Section 174-A IPC. Consequently, case FIR No.122 dated 16.02.2020 was registered against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the issuance of the proclamation was bad and that no actual service had been affected upon him. He further submitted that procedure contemplated under Section 82 CrPC had not been followed, hence the consequent proclamation of the petitioner was improper. The petitioner contends that he is employed in the Army and was posted as Regiment Havildar Major. He was discharging his duty with the Western Command during the said period and thereafter remained posted in the Eastern Command. The list of assigned duties has been appended by the petitioner as Annexure P-5. It is, thus, contended that non-appearance of the petitioner was not on account of any deliberate attempt to avoid appearance before the Court, rather, proper service was never affected upon the petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that failure to effect service upon the petitioner apart, the parties have also resolved their dispute and now there is no amount due against the petitioner. In support thereof, he has made reference to the order dated 07.09.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala, as per which the complainant got recorded his statement to the effect that compromise between the parties had been affected and had withdrawn the complaint filed by him in acknowledgment of the same. The order dated 07.09.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Ambala is extracted as under:-
Ashok KumarAnad Vs. Sher Singh Rana
Present: Sh. Pawan Kumar Goel, counsel for the complainant.
An application for withdrawing the complaint, has been moved by the ld. Counsel for the complainant. Main file be summoned. Ahlmad is directed to put up the the main file after some time.
(Anit Rani)
JMIC / Ambala
Present: Sh. Pawan Kumar Goel, counsel for the complainant.
After some time, main file received. It be restored on its original number. Ld. Cou
The central legal point established in the judgment is that once the substantive complaint stands settled due to compromise between the parties, the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IP....
Once the main dispute is amicably resolved between the parties, the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of the process of law, and a liberal approach should be adopt....
Continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC is an abuse of process of law once the main dispute between the parties has ended.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC after the withdrawal of the main case is an abuse of the process of law.
The withdrawal of the main complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act rendered the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC an abuse of the process of the Court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
