The withdrawal of the main petition under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, due to an amicable settlement between the parties, renders the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC an abuse of the process of law.

ORDER

1. This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.217 dated 16.02.2020, registered under Section 174-A of IPC (Annexure P-1), at Police Station Baldev Nagar, District Ambala and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the State Bank of India had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the NI Act') and in the said proceedings the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person, vide order dated 18.12.2017 (Annexure P-2) and the concerned SHO was directed to register an FIR under Section 174-A IPC and in pursuance of the said order, the present FIR has been registered. It is further submitted that the petitioner had paid all his dues to the State Bank of India and thus, the State Bank of India through its counsel had withdrawn the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act and the said fact is apparent from the order dated 30.08.2022 (Annexure P-7). It is also submitted that the petitioner has also been granted the concession of anticipatory bail vide order dated 15.05.2020 (Annexure P-5) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala in the present FIR. It is contended that in view of the same, the present FIR deserves to be quashed.

3. Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the present FIR was rightly registered in pursuance of the order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala and thus, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the record.

4. 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."

5. A perusal of the above judgment would show that in a similar case where the FIR had been registered under Section 174-A IPC in view of the order passed in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, while declaring the petitioner therein as proclaimed offender in the said proceedings, a Co-ordinate Bench after relying upon various judgments observed that once the main petition under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties, the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The said aspect was one of the main considerations for allowing the petition and setting aside the order declaring the petitioner therein as pr