IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.01.2025 Sajjan @ Sajjan Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present : Mr. Vishal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. D.K.Singal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed in Criminal Complaint No. NACT-475 dated 18.02.2021 titled as “Axis Bank Limited Vs. Sajjan” (Annexure P-1) by the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Karnal, whereby, the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person. A further prayer has been made to quash the FIR No. 1009 dated 21.06.2023 under Section 174-A IPC, Police Station Karnal, Civil Lines, District Karnal (Annexure P-7) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint (Annexure P-1) under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') against the petitioner. Vide order dated 15.03.2021 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was summoned by the trial Court to face trial. After passing of the summoning order, the trial Court had issued bailable warrants as well as non bailable warrants for the service of the petitioner. However, the summons were never served on the petitioner. Ultimately, the trial Court held that the petitioner could not be served through ordinary process or warrants of arrest and the proclamation was ordered to be issued against the petitioner under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Again, the proclamation was served through the brother of the petitioner and the proclamation was not read openly in the village. From the statement of the serving constable (Annexure P-5), it was apparent that the procedure prescribed under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was not followed by him. Ultimately, vide order dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure P-6), the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person. In compliance of the order (Annexure P-6), one FIR No. 1009 dated 21.06.2023 under Section 174-A IPC, Police Station Karnal, Civil Lines, District Karnal (Annexure P-7) was also ordered to be registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the moment petitioner came to know about the pendency of the present complaint, he compromised the matter with the respondent/complainant and ultimately complainant had withdrawn the complaint on 21.12.2023. Since the very purpose of issuance of proclamation against the petitioner was to procure his presence, no purpose would be served by ordering his prosecution at this state, when the main case, i.e., complaint under Section 138 of the Act has already been compromised between the parties. Thus, the impugned order dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure P-6), FIR No. 1009 dated 21.06.2023 under Section 174-A IPC, Police Station Karnal, Civil Lines, District Karnal (Annexure P-7) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are misuse of the process of the Court.

3. On the other hand, Mr. D.K. Singal, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2/complainant and filed a short reply, which is taken on record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that the complainant has withdrawn the main complaint on 21.12.2023 and he has no objection, in case, the present petition is accepted and the impugned order (Annexure P-6) and FIR (Annexure P-7) are ordered to be quashed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-43813- 2018 titled as “Baldev Chand Bansal vs. State of Haryana and another”, decided on 29.01.2019 has 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 Secto