*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.0162 dated 08.05.2022 registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Division-A, Amritsar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Brief factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 had instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner on account of dishonour of cheques amounting to ₹50,000/- and ₹60,000/-. During the pendency of the said complaint bearing No. NACT/6533/2018 dated 02.12.2018, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 14.02.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, which led to registration of the impugned FIR under Section 174-A IPC.

3. Learned counsel appearing 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 as a proclaimed person & hence the impugned FIR came to be got registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has already moved an application for discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. on 26.02.2020 and the same remained pending for considerable time and was ultimately dismissed on 22.02.2022. During the pendency of the said application, the petitioner was declared proclaimed person without due application of judicial mind. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre through the District Legal Services Authority and the dispute between the parties stood amicably settled; In pursuance of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the petitioner has paid the settled amount to respondent No. 2 and consequently the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stood withdrawn vide order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar and hence it has been submitted that no useful purpose would be served by continuation of the proceedings qua the impugned FIR. The relevant part of the said order reads thus:

“Accordingly, the present complaint stands dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, the accused stands acquitted. The bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. The cash surety/FDR, if any, furnished by the accused, be also returned by the Reader after proper verification against proper receipt and acknowledgment. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.”

4. Learned State counsel, on instructions, also ratified the fact that the main complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands withdrawn in view of the compromise effected between the parties.

5. None has caused appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 despite service.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have persued the paper-book.

7. The seminal question that arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether the impugned FIR (as also proceedings arising therefrom) under Section 174-A of the IPC deserves to be quashed in the factual matrix of the present case.

8. At this juncture; it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of this Court passed in CRM-M-51049-2019 titled as Mohammad Hanif Attari vs. State of Haryana, decided on 06.07.2023; relevant whereof reads as under:

“3. In view the fact that after the principle proceedings in which the petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender stand concluded, the question would arise is: 'whether in the given circumstances, proceedings under Section 174A of the IPC pursuant to FIR No.425 dated 17th of November, 2017 can be allowed to continue.

4. The question framed ibid is no more res integra and already stands answered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-43813-2018 titled as "Baldev Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and another" vide order dated 29.01.2019, which held