Continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC is an abuse of process when the underlying complaint under Section 138 is withdrawn due to an amicable settlement.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral)

This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.0489 dated 05.06.2019 under Section 174-A IPC registered at Police Station Karnal City, District Karnal, Haryana and all other subsequent 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/Vijay Kumar Sethi. 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 13.05.2019 (Annexure P-2) pursuant to which an FIR under Section 174-A IPC had been ordered to be registered against him in complaint bearing NACT No.2002 of 2018 pending before the JMIC, Karnal.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused approached to the complainant, compromised the matter and paid the entire due amount to the complainant-Vijay Kumar Sethi. Thereafter, the complainant appeared before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal and suffered a statement that as the matter had been settled between the parties and the amount in question 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 Therefore, the complaint in question was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.11.2019 (Annexure P-3).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 has been filed for quashing of aforesaid FIR No.0489 dated 05.06.2019 under Section 174-A IPC, Police Station Karnal City, District Karnal, Haryana (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

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. On 30.11.2019, the complainant got recorded his statement before the Trial Court that since the matter had been compromised between the parties and he 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 30.11.2019 (Annexure P-2).

5. The learned State counsel 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 as a 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.

8. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-43813-2018 titled as "Baldev Chand Bansal v. 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 v. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another (supra), 2017, (3) L.A.R.584, Microqual Techno Limited and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2015 (32) RCR (Crl.) 790 and "Rajneesh Khanna v. State of Haryana and another" 2017(3) L.A.R. 555 wherein in an id