Allowed

Mahender Pal Jindal and Another v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Sept 2022CRM-M/15603/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition to quash an order declaring the petitioners as proclaimed persons and the consequent FIR under Section 174-A IPC, holding that continuation of such proceedings after amicable settlement of the main cheque bounce case constituted an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22nd February, 2019 and FIR No.81 dated 19th March, 2019 registered under Section 174A IPC are quashed.

Mahender Pal Jindal and Another Vs State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

233

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-15603-2019 Date of decision : 02.09.2022

¶4

Mahender Pal Jindal and another

¶5

....Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and another

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶10

Present : Mr. Arshdeep S. Cheema, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. R.K. Ambavta, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1/State.

¶12

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶13

By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. , the petitioners are seeking quashing of order dated 22^nd February, 2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Narwana, in complaint case No.164 dated 21^st of April, 2017 filed under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the Act'), and all proceedings subsequent thereto including FIR No.81 dated 19^th March, 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Section 174A, at Police Station Narwana City, District Jind (Annexure P-2)

¶14

Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has produced order dated 24^th of December, 2021 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Narnaul, which reads as under :-

¶15

DEEPAK KUMAR 2022.09.05 06:46 I attest to the accuracy of this document

¶16

CRM-M-15603-2019

¶17

¶18

“NACT-164-2017 CNR No.HRJNA0-000692-2017 Atma Ram vs. Best Foods Ltd.

¶19

Present: Complainant in person represented by Sh. Dara Singh, Advocate.

¶20

File put up today as an application for putting up the case file and to withdraw the same filed on behalf of complainant filed by his counsel. Complainant Ashok Kumar Prop. M/s. Atma Ram Balwan Singh has appeared in person and made his statement on oath to the effect that accused has paid the full amount in the present complaint. Therefore, he does not want to proceed further with the present complaint and seeks to withdraw the same. His statement to that effect has been recorded separately, which also identified by his counsel.

¶21

Heard. In view of the statement so made by complainant himself, the present criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument, Act is hereby dismissed as withdrawn . File, after needful, be consigned to the records.

¶22

Announced in open Court:-

¶23

24.12.2021

¶24

(Naveen Kumar-l), Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narwana UID-HR0461”

¶25

Certified copy of the order dated 24^th of December, 2021,

¶26

passed by JMIC, Narnaul, is being taken on record as Mark 'X'. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place.

¶27

While referring to the said order, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the main proceedings under Section 138 read with

¶28

DEEPAK KUMAR 2022.09.05 06:46 I attest to the accuracy of this document

¶29

CRM-M-15603-2019

¶30

¶31

Section 142 of the N.I. Act stands compromised and the complaint has been withdrawn as the liability alleged against the petitioners stands satisfied. It has been thus contended that the order declaring the petitioners as Proclaimed Persons and the consequential FIR No.81 dated 19^th of March, 2019, cannot be sustained. He argues that the main objective of incorporating Section 174-A IPC is to secure the presence of the accused.

¶32

Ld. State Counsel submits that there are eleven more FIRs under Section 174-A IPC, pending against the petitioners, owing to the fact that the petitioners were declared Proclaimed Persons in similar proceedings. Responding thereto Mr. Cheema would submit that those proceedings also stand quashed as the main complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act have been compromised.

¶33

Keeping in view the fact that in the present case the main proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act already stand compromised and the complaint has been withdrawn, the question will be 'whether in the given circumstances, proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC pursuant to FIR No.81 dated 19^th of March, 2019 can be allowed to continue'?

¶34

The question framed ibid is no more res integra and already stands answered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-438132018 titled as “ Baldev Chand Bansal Vs. State of Haryana and another” vide order dated 29.01.2019, which held as under:

¶35

“Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017 filed under Section 174-A of the Indian

¶36

DEEPAK KUMAR 2022.09.05 06:46 I attest to the accuracy of this document

¶37

CRM-M-15603-2019

¶38

¶39

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."

¶40

xx xxx xxxx

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by this Court in “ Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another (supra), 2017, (3) L.A.R.584, Microqual Techno Limited and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2015 (32) RCR (Crl.) 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.

¶42

xx xxx xxxx

¶43

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."

¶44

Same is the view of another Co-ordinate Bench in the “Ashok

¶45

Madaan vs. State of Haryana and another” reported as 2020 (4) RCR

¶46

(Criminal) 87, wherein it has been held that:

¶47

“No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondent has

¶48

DEEPAK KUMAR 2022.09.05 06:46 I attest to the accuracy of this document

¶49

CRM-M-15603-2019

¶50

¶51

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.

¶52

7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 446 dated 21.08.2017, registered under Section 174A I.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali, District Faridabad, as well as consequential proceedings shall stand quashed.”

¶53

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case

¶54

and in view of the principles settled by this Court, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order 22^nd February, 2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Narwana and FIR No.81 dated 19^th March, 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Section 174A, at Police Station Narwana City, District Jind (Annexure P-2), are hereby quashed qua the present petitioners.

¶55

September 02, 2022	(PANKAJ JAIN)
Dpr	JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶56

DEEPAK KUMAR 2022.09.05 06:46 I attest to the accuracy of this document

Mahender Pal Jindal and Another v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahender Pal Jindal and Another v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Thanesar Improvement Trust Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Ranjit Singh Vs Gajraj Singh

Sudesh Kataria Vs State of Haryana and Others

Malkeet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab

Chamandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr.