JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 10 dated 06.01.2023 registered for offence punishable under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station City Nuh and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

2. Notice of motion.

3. Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.l.

4. Mr. Arman Goyal, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and accepts the averments made in the petition.

5. The petitioner was summoned to face trial in complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the 'NI Act') after the petitioner evaded appearance he was declared as proclaimed person vide order dated 24.01.2022 leading to registration of the impugned FIR. Subsequent to registration of FIR, it is claimed that the petitioner settled the matter with the complainant in the proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act and the said complaint now stands withdrawn.

6. Reference is being made to order Annexure P-5 dated 18.03.2024.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that in view of the fact that the principal proceedings already stands and withdrawn the impugned FIR registered for offence punishable under Section 174-A IPC cannot sustain.

8. The question as to whether FIR and proceedings based thereupon under Section 174-A IPC can be allowed to continue once the principal proceedings have already been settled and withdrawn already stands answered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-43813- 2018 titled as 'Baldev Chand Bansal Vs. State of Haryana and another' vide order dated 29.01.2019, which 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."

xxxxxxxxx

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by this Court in ' Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another, 2017, (3) L.A.R.584, Microqual Techno Limited and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2015 (32) RCR (Criminal) 790 and 'Rajneesh Khanna Vs. State of Haryana and another' 2017 (3) L.A.R. 555 wherein in an identical circumstance, this Court has held that since the main petition filed under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties, therefore, continuation of proceedings under Section 174A of IPC shall be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

xxxxxxxxx

In view of the same, I find merit in the present petition and accordingly, present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.10.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Panchkula as well as FIR No. 64 dated 15.02.2017 registered under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, are hereby quashed. '

9. Same is the view of another Co-ordinate Bench in the 'Ashok Madaan vs. State of Haryana and another' reported as 2020 (4) RCR (Criminal) 87, wherein it has been held that:-

'No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the offence under Section 174-A I.P.C. is independent of the main case, therefore, merely because the main case has been dismissed for want of prosecution, the present petition cannot be allowed, however, keeping in view the fact that the present FIR was registered only on account of absence from the proceedings in the main case which had been subsequently regularised by the court while granting bail to the petitioner, the default stood condoned. In such circumstances, continuation of proceedings under Section 174A I.P.C. shall be abuse of the process of court.

7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 446 dat