JUDGMENT :

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.2326 dated 27.11.2019, under Section 174-A IPC, registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom and order dated 30.11.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram in a complaint case No.5965 of 2016, dated 10.05.2016, titled as 'Sunil Kumar vs. Ramapati Mishra' under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as 'NI Act') registered at the instance of respondent No.2 at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present FIR is the outcome of a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act wherein the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person. He further contended that the trial Court has acquitted the petitioner from the charges levelled against him in the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. He has referred to the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court on 06.07.2022 at Annexure P-8. He, therefore, prays for quashing of the present FIR as the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of process of law. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Daljit Singh versus State of Haryana and another, bearing Criminal Appeal No.4359 of 2024, decided on 02.01.2025 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Soni Kumar versus State of Punjab, bearing CRM-M-55315-2024, decided on 10.01.2025.

3. Learned State counsel, in its reply filed by way of an affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, City, Gurugram dated 07.10.2023, on behalf of respondent No.l has affirmed the factum of acquittal of the petitioner in the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the material available on record.

5. The brief facts of the case are that an initial complaint bearing No.5965/2016, titled as 'Sunil Kumar versus Rama Pati Mishra' had been filed by respondent No.2/complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'NI Act') in the Court of learned JMIC, Gurugram for dishonouring of two cheques total amounting to Rs.80 lakhs and the petitioner was summoned in the complaint, however, being unaware about the proceedings, he could not appear and as a result thereof, he was declared as a proclaimed person vide order dated vide order dated 30.11.2018 (Annexure P-2), and the SHO concerned was directed to register a case under Section 174A IPC against the petitioner and therefore, the present FIR under Section 174-A IPC has been registered against him.

6. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the present FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC on the ground that he has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him in the initial complaint bearing No.5965/2016 and the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.

7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Daljit Singh versus State of Haryana and another(supra) has quashed the impugned FIR therein registered under Section 174-A IPC on the ground that the initial complaint under Section 138 NI Act had been settled between the parties. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

7.3 Now, what happens if the status under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is nullified i.e., the person subjected to such proclamation, by virtue of subsequent developments is no longer required to be presented before a Court of law. Then, can the prosecution still proceed against such a person for having not appeared before a Court during the time that the process was in effect. The answer is in the affirmative. We say so for the following reasons:-

8. In conclusion, we hold that Section 174A IPC is