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.

JUDGMENT :

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

CRM-50589-2023

This is an application for revival/restoration of the main case which was ordered to be dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 31.10.2023.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The main case is ordered to be restored to its original number and position.

On the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the main case is taken up for hearing today itself.

CRM-M-31767-2017

This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 02.07.2016 (Annexure P-4) vide which the petitioner has been ordered to be summoned through proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., order dated 28.07.2016 (Annexure P-5) vide which the Trial Court had held that the proclamation issued against the petitioner had been received back duly effected and order dated 06.08.2016 (Annexure P-6) vide which the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person and FIR under Section 174-A IPC which had been ordered to be registered against the petitioner in complaint No.945/2015 dated 16.06.2015 pending adjudication before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted against the petitioner/accused at the instance of the complainant/respondent No.1-Bank through its General Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Yudhvir. As the petitioner/accused did not appear before the Trial Court to face trial, he was declared as a proclaimed person as per the order dated 06.08.2016 (Annexure P-6) pursuant to which an FIR under Section 174-A IPC had been ordered to be registered against him in complaint No.945/2015 dated 16.06.2015 pending before the JMIC, Ambala.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused approached to the complainant, compromised the matter and paid the entire due amount to the complainant-Bank. Thereafter, the complainant-Bank through its representative and Mr. Puneet Sirpaul, Advocate appeared before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala and suffered a statement that as the balance amount had been received from the accused-petitioner, he did not want to proceed further with the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and withdrew the same. Therefore, the complaint in question was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.02.2018 (Annexure P-8). In view of the dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of the compromise, the present petition has been filed for quashing of aforesaid impugned orders dated 02.07.2016 (Annexure P-4), 28.07.2016 (Annexure P-5) and order dated 06.08.2016 (Annexure P-6) alongwith FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR came to be registered against the petitioner due to his non-appearance in the aforementioned complaint. Thereafter, the matter was compromised between the parties and the petitioner- accused had made the payment of the entire due amount to the complainant-Bank. On 15.02.2018, the complainant-respondents No.1 through his counsel got recorded his statement before the Trial Court that since the matter had been compromised between the parties and the complainant-Bank had received the entire due amount, therefore, he did not want to proceed further with the complaint and wanted to withdraw the same. Based on the said statement, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.02.2018 (Annexure P-8).

5. The learned State counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the FIR had been correctly registered.

6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel and has perused the paper-book.

7. 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 a