SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(P&H) 571

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
SUMEET GOEL, J.
Gyan Prakash Rastogi – Appellant 
Versus
State of Haryana And Another – Respondent
CRM-M No.27467 of 2023
Decided on : 16-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate,
For the Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana

JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J. (Oral)

1. The petition in hand has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., with the following substantive prayer:

'It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition being filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and to quash the FIR No.77 dated 16.6.2017 registered under Sections 174-A of IPC, Police Station Sector-53, Gurugram (Annexure P-1), the Final Form/Report (Annexure P-3), as well order dated 15.2.2018 (Annexure P-5) by which the Ld. Trial Court framed charge against the accused in CHI/2369/2017 now fixed in the Hon'ble Court of Ms. Himani Gill, JMIC, Gurugram, Haryana alongwith all the consequential proceedings arising thereto.'

2. The impugned FIR (as set out in the petition in hand) reads thus:-

'To SHO Sir, Sector 53 Gurugram Jai Hind I ASI alongwith Constable Ganesh Kumar 2618/GGM were present patrolling at Udhog Vihar Phase-5 that Davender Kumar son of Jaipal Singh resident H. No. 31PE LIG FLAT Hari Nagar New Delhi 110064, Assistant Manager HDFC Bank Indianexpress ITO Delhi met us and presented one order PO GN 652 dt. 24.08.2015 Case No. 138 NIACT/67267/2014 from the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Kunal Garg JMIC Gurugram related to Gyan Parkash Rastogi. The abovestated Davender Kumar told that Gyan Parkash Rastogi had taken loan from HDFC Bank Sector 53 who has been declared Proclaimed Offender by Hon'ble Court on getting cheque bounced. Who is standing in front of MGRM Company Plot No. 221 Phase IV. On getting information I ASI alongwithGanesh Kumar 2618/GGM reached on the spot where we find a man standing on seeing police party he started moving fast, who was caught hold with the help of Constable and on enquiring his name and address told his name Gyan Prakash Rastogi, S/o Late Parmotma Nand Rastogi resident of SH-24 Shastri Nagar, Gaziabad D-201001 UP. By violating the order passed by the Hon'ble Court Gain Parkash Rastogi has committed crime under section 174-A of IPC. The incident is of Sector-53 Gurugram. Therefore this case is send to Arsal Police Station Sector-53 Gurugram in the hand of Constable Ganeh Kumar Belt no. 2618/ggm. Number be intimated after registration of FIR and for further proceeding another investigation officer be send on spot. I ASI is investigating officer on spot. Today at Phase 4 Udhyog Vihar Gurugram SD MAHENDER ASI PS UDHOG VIHAR GGM DT 16.06.17. Today on receipt by abovesaid Police Station FIR registered Case no. 77 dated 16.06.2017 under Section-174-A of IPC PS SEC 53, the copy of the FIR has been preparedas per Rules, which is send through post to Illaqa Magistrate and High Officers. The copy of same is kept in police record and original is send to HC Sandeep 37 SIC for further investigation.'

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned FIR, has its genesis, in a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner (herein) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, in proceedings whereof the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person & hence the impugned FIR got registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order as also the proceedings declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person are manifestly illegal and against the mandatory provisions of law. It has been further iterated that the criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 has already been withdrawn as the rival parties had entered into a settlement and hence no useful purpose would be served by continuation of the proceedings qua the impugned FIR. To buttress this aspect of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 9.8.2017 passed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate which reads thus:

'Present: Complainant in person represented by Sh. Sandeep Mehta, Advocate.

Sh. Sandeep Mehta, counsel for complainant got recorded his separate statement that complainant has received payment against the cheque in dispute. He does not want to proceed with the complaint and same may be dis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top