Nirmaljit Singh vs State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 3175

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 3175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
Nirmaljit Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M-53195 of 2022
Decided On : 08-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Manvir Singh Toor, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bokolia, Advocate for the appellant(s)/petitioner(s).
Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, AAG, Haryana.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 174-A - Quashing of FIR - Petition filed for quashing FIR under Section 174-A IPC after compromise of charge under Section 138 NI Act, where the petitioner paid the owed amount along with compensation - The court held that pending proceedings are an abuse of the legal process post-compromise, following precedents established in several judgments (Paragraphs 10, 11, 12).

(B) Legal Principle - The registration of an FIR under Section 174-A IPC is unjustifiable following the withdrawal of the primary complaint under the NI Act after settlement, as affirmed by precedence (Paragraph 9).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act and was declared a proclaimed offender. Following a compromise, the complaint was withdrawn, yet an FIR under Section 174-A IPC was lodged against him post-compromise.

Findings of Court:
The continuation of the FI is deemed an abuse of process given the grievances between the parties had been resolved amicably.

Issues: Whether the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC are maintainable post-compromise of the underlying charge under Section 138 NI Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that continuation of Section 174-A IPC proceedings is abusive since the primary complaint has been compromised; judicial economy demands quashing the FIR in light of the resolution of the underlying dispute (Paragraphs 12, 13).

Result: Petition allowed; FIR quashed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case and immediate proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments surrounding the validity of the fir. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court analysis of the parties' claims and order references. (Para 6 , 7)
4. judicial precedents on similar cases regarding fir. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. final order quashing the fir. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)

Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 671, dated 25.08.2022, under Section 174-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Sirsa City, District Sirsa (Annexure P-1), and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. On bouncing of cheque amounting to Rs.1,22,030/- of State Bank of India, petitioner was facing Criminal Complaint No. NACT-99/2019, dated 29.01.2019, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, 'NI Act'). In the said proceedings, petitioner was declared 'proclaimed offender' by the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, vide order dated 08.08.2022 (Annexure P-2). Subsequently, impugned FIR has been registered on the basis of order dated 08.08.2022 (Annexure P-2), by which petitioner was declared proclaimed offender.

3. After passing of the aforesaid order, entire amount was paid back to the complainant along with compensation, and thereafter, the complaint filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, 'NI Act'), already stood withdrawn on 26.08.2022, in view of the compromise entered between the parties. In support of this fact, order dated 26.08.2022 passed by learned JMIC Sirsa, is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3.

It is also noticed that just one day prior to that, impugned FIR No.174 under Section 174-A IPC, was registered on 25.8.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that declaration of the petitioner as proclaimed offender, and thereafter, registration of FIR under Section 174-A of IPC, would not be considered material proceeding, once main offence from which such proceedings emerged, has already been compromised between the private parties. In support of the contention, learned counsel relies upon judgment dated 13.07.2022 passed in CRM-M-12034- 2022 (Hitesh H. Shah v. State of Haryana and another). He submits that case of the petitioner is completely identical on the facts and law to that of the referred judgment.

5. Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, AAG, Haryana, submits that impugned order has been passed as per law by following all the provisions of Cr. P. C., and therefore, same is worth to sustain. However, he is not disputing the fact that the very dispute out of which proceedings have been initiated under Section 174-A IPC stands finalised and the main petition under section 138 of NI Act has already been withdrawn on 26.08.2022.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case record available before me.

7. It seems to be undisputed that cheque amount of Rs.1,22,030/- along with compensation has been paid by the petitioner, as said fact is recorded in the Court order dated 26.08.2022 itself. In paragraph Nos. 5, 6 & 8 of the present petition also, factum of compromise and withdrawal of the complaint case has been explained. Said paragraphs are reproduced herein below:-

"5. That as soon as the petitioner came to know about the fact that he has been declared proclaimed offender, he immediately approached respondent No.3 and a compromise was affected between the parties and after the compromise, the respondent no.3 has withdrawn the complaint as the petitioner has paid the entire cheque amount alongwith compensation to the respondent no.3. A copy of order dated 26.08.2022 withdrawing the complaint is attached herewith as Annexure P-3.

6. That it is humbly submitted that petitioner was not aware regarding the proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act. After becoming aware regarding the proceedings petitioner has immediately cleared the amount and has s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document