IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
Mahesh Gupta – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-63455 of 2023
Decided On : 16-12-2023
JUDGMENT
Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No.732 dated 21.07.2018 (Annexure P-2) registered under Section 174A of IPC at Police Station Ballabhgarh City, Faridabad which was registered consequent to the order dated 02.06.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridabad (Annexure P-1) in NACT/482/2017 under Sections 138 and 142 of the NI Act, declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person.
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. 4,00,000/- 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 Sections 138 & 142 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 02.06.2018 (Annexure P-1).
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 Thereafter, a compromise was effected between the parties and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the order dated 12.09.2023 (Annexures P-3 & P-4). 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 aforesaid FIR No.732 dated 21.07.2018 (Annexure P-2) registered under Section 174A of IPC at Police Station Ballabhgarh City, Faridabad came to be registered.
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 12.09.2023, the counsel for the complainant in the Trial Court got recorded his statement that as per his instructions, the 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 Based on the said statement, the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn on 12.09.2023.
5. The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the FIR has been correctly registered.
6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties 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 the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The impugned complaint 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:-
Withdrawal of a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act leads to quashing of FIR under Section 174A IPC, as continuing proceedings is an abuse of process.
Proceedings under Section 174A IPC are an abuse of process when the underlying complaint is withdrawn following a settlement.
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 ....
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.