Continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC after withdrawal of the main complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is an abuse of the process of law and warrants the quashing of the FIR.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No.0153 dated 28.06.2021 under Sections 174-A IPC registered at P.S. Civil Lines, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of the FIR as the matter has been compromised between the parties vide compromise dated 27.05.2023 (Annexure P-4) in complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which was withdrawn vide order dated 01.04.2023 (Annexure P-3).

2. The brief facts of the case are that in discharge of his legal liability, the petitioner/accused issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- dated 05.10.2018 in favour of the complainant. The said cheque came to be dishonoured. Pursuant thereto, as no payment was made in lieu of the dishonoured cheque, a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act came to be instituted against the petitioner/accused and he was summoned to face trial. Subsequently, he was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 10.12.2018. Pursuant to the said order, an FIR No.0153 dated 28.06.2021 under Sections 174-A IPC registered at P.S. Civil Lines, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1) came to be registered against him.

3. Thereafter, a compromise was effected between the parties and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the order dated 01.04.2023 (Annexure P-3). In view of the dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of the compromise, the present petition for quashing of the aforesaid FIR No.0153 dated 28.06.2021 under Sections 174-A IPC registered at P.S. Civil Lines, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1) has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that he had wrongly been declared a proclaimed person and on learning about the same, the petitioner compromised the matter with the complainant. Thereafter, on 01.04.2023, the counsel for the complainant in the Trial Court got recorded his statement that complainant did not want to proceed further with the present complaint and wanted to withdraw the same. Based on the said statement, the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn on 01.04.2023 (P3).

5. Notice of motion.

6. On the asking of the Bench, Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG Punjab accepts notice and has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the FIR has been correctly registered whereas Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent o.2-complainant and has filed his power of attorney and has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed as the matter has been compromised between the parties.

7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper-book.

8. From the above-said facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the present FIR was registered in view of the fact that the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person in the proceeding under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The impugned complaint itself has been withdrawn.

9. 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),, 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” wherein in an identical circumstance, this Court has held that since the main petition filed under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn