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 adopted towards the accused.

JUDGMENT

Vinod S. Bhardwaj. J. (Oral) - 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 stands settled amongst the parties?

2. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for seeking quashing of the FIR No.216 dated 30.12.2016 registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib along with all proceedings arising therefrom.

3. It would be appropriate to make a brief reference to the facts involved in the instant case. The respondent-complainant had instituted the proceedings against the petitioner as well as his father Jarnail Singh alleging that on 05.07.2012, at about 9:00 p.m., when the complainant along with one Karnail Singh was coming back to his village on his scooter bearing No.PB-48-4124 driven by the complainant, a bullock cart came on the road from the left side and hit the scooter thereby causing grievous injuries to the complainant including fracture of the left leg. There was no reflector fixed on the said cart for the purposes of night riding and hence, the respondents acted negligently and carelessly. The petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender in the said case whereas father of the petitioner faced the trial. Vide judgment dated 12.03.2018 passed in CIS No. CRM-930-2012 titled as 'Baljinder Singh versus SSP, Fatehgarh Sahib and others', the father of the petitioner was acquitted. It is submitted that the petitioner appeared before the Court and thereafter the petitioner surrendered before the Court and was released on bail vide order dated 08.01.2020. It is further pointed out that the matter in question has already been compromised between the parties and copy of the statement of complainant in this regard was appended along with the petition. He further submits that pursuant to the order dated 20.01.2016 vide which petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender, the impugned FIR was registered against the petitioner under Section 174(A) of the IPC. It is however argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner was regularly appearing in the said complaint and on 20.05.2015, he was informed by his counsel that the petitioner stands acquitted and he need not come to the Court. Thereafter, he went to New Zealand and from there proceeded to Canada. He submits that the summons; warrants i.e. bailable or non-bailable were never served upon the petitioner. Besides, he further submits that no proper proclamation was issued and that the petitioner had been residing abroad since July 2015 and did not return. He has argued that the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties and that even the earlier proceedings resulted in acquittal of father of the petitioner. The incarceration of the petitioner in the above FIR is not likely to advance any interest of justice.

4. 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 effected 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. 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 effected 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 23.12.2020 passed by ACJ (SD)-cum-CJM, Fatehgarh Sahib as per which the complainant got recorded his statement to the effect that compromise between the parties had been effected and had withdrawn the complaint filed by him in acknowledgment of the same. Th