The withdrawal of the main petition under Section 138 of the Act due to an amicable settlement between the parties led to the quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC as an abuse of the process of law.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 02.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla, order dated 01.03.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla, FIR No.41, dated 27.02.2018 (Annexure P-2) registered under Section 174-A of IPC at Police Station Cheeka, District Kaithal and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.2 namely, Rajesh Kumar filed a complaint under Section 138 NI Act in the learned trial Court wherein, he alleged that the petitioner/accused had received Rs.4 lakhs from him i.e. complainant in the year 2014 on the pretext of getting employment for him in a foreign country. He further alleged that when he was unable to send the complainant abroad in order to discharge his liability, (return the money) the petitioner issued cheque bearing No.000016 dated 16.09.2015 for the sum of Rs.2 lakhs of Bank of India, Branch Fatehgarh Sahib that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the drawer. It was also submitted that the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person vide order dated 02.07.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla in proceedings under Section 138 NI Act. It is submitted that the petitioner was never served in the said proceedings and learnt about the said proceedings after the police was raiding the house of the petitioner as he has been declared as proclaimed person. On learning about the same, the petitioner compromised the matter with the complainant/respondent No.2 and in view of the compromise, the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 were withdrawn. He has further submitted that the matter has already been compromised and the complainant has appeared before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-cum-Presiding Officer, National Lok Adalat, Guhla and made a statement, whereupon the complaint in question has been permitted to be withdrawn.

3. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 has not disputed the facts as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner and has further submitted that proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 have already been withdrawn and the matter has been compromised. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent has also stated that he has no objection in case the present FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

4. The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the complaint has been correctly registered.

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

6. 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 proclaimed person in the proceeding under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. The impugned complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 itself has been withdrawn.

7. 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