Allowed

Umesh Kumar Jain and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Aug 2023CRM-M/24025/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC and consequent proceedings initiated after the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person. Relying on Section 195 Cr.P.C., the Court held the FIR invalid as no public servant complaint was instituted, rendering the order unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 22.03.2021 set aside; FIR No.0075 and all subsequent proceedings quashed.

Umesh Kumar Jain and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and… — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CRM-M-24025-2021 (O&M)

¶2

2023:PHHC:126893

¶3

264 (23)

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRM-M-24025-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.08.2023

¶6

Umesh Kumar Jain and others ….Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another ….Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶8

Present: - Mr. Pardhuman Garg, Advocate, Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate & Mr. Parvez Chugh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr. Karan Garg, AAG, Haryana.

¶10

Mr. Abhishek Dhiman, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶11

¶12

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of order dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad in Complaint No. NACT/2129/2017 dated 06.05.2017 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’), whereby petitioners were declared as proclaimed persons and FIR No.0075 dated 11.04.2021 (Annexure P-2), registered under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), at Police Station, B.P.T.P, District Faridabad against the petitioners arising from order dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

¶14

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that matter stands settled as entire cheque amount has been paid to complainant and complaint case under Section 138 of the Act has also been withdrawn vide order dated 05.04.2021 (Annexure P-10) by the complainant. He further contends that no useful purpose

¶15

HARISH KUMAR 2023.10.30 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶16

1 of 4

¶17

CRM-M-24025-2021 (O&M)

¶18

2023:PHHC:126893

¶19

would be served by keeping the present proceedings under Section 174A of IPC, pending.

¶20

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer made and submits that order declaring petitioners as proclaimed persons has rightly been passed. He further submits that the offence under Section 174A IPC is independent of the main case.

¶21

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR in question.

¶22

Arguments heard.

¶23

The complaint against the petitioners was for an offence under Section 138 of the Act.

¶24

Vide order dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure P-1), learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad recorded its satisfaction that the accusedpetitioners had absconded, declared them proclaimed offenders and directed that intimation be sent to the concerned police station to initiate proceeding against them under section 174-A of IPC. Aforesaid FIR was thus registered. In my opinion, the order for registering an FIR itself is not sustainable and fatal to the FIR for the reasons stated hereinafter.

¶25

Reference may be had to judgment rendered by me in Pardeep Kumar versus State of Punjab and another¹ passed in CRM-M-41656-2023 (O&M) decided on 23.08.2023 wherein I have, inter alia , opined that the offence under Section 174-A of IPC falls within the scope Section 195(1) (a)(i) of the Code ibid which provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Further, it was held that if after declaring an individual as a “proclaimed person”

¶26

1 2023 Live Law (PH) 181

¶27

HARISH KUMAR 1 2023.10.30 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶28

2 of 4

¶29

CRM-M-24025-2021 (O&M)

¶30

2023:PHHC:126893

¶31

or “proclaimed offender,” the Court decides to proceed against him for an offence under section 174-A of IPC, it has to institute a formal written complaint in the competent jurisdictional court and that the order passed for registering FIR and the FIR so registered in such case were not sustainable in law.

¶32

In the present case, proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC were not initiated as per guidelines and ratio laid down in Pardeep Kumar judgment ibid. As an upshot, it is held that the judgment and order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the learned Magistrate is not sustainable on that ground alone. Neither there is any compliance of the relevant statutory requirements in letter and spirit, for declaring the petitioners a proclaimed person/offender, nor is the impugned judgment of trial court in terms of the guidelines laid in Pardeep Kumar judgment. For the sake of brevity, the guidelines laid down in Pardeep Kumar judgment are not being reproduced and the same may be referred therefrom. The requisite application of mind by the Court while invoking criminal liability of the petitioners for offence under Section 174-A of IPC is also lacking herein. The said initial order dated dated 22.03.2021 itself which formed the basis of the registration of the FIR under Section 174-A of IPC against the petitioners and subsequent trial are bad in law.

¶33

As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the entire cheque amount was paid to the complainant and the complaint under section 138 of the Act was withdrawn vide order dated 05.04.2021 (Annexure P-10). On withdrawal of the complaint and termination of it’s proceedings against the petitioners, the requirement for their appearance in Court also came to an end.

¶34

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are liable to be quashed.

¶35

HARISH KUMAR 2023.10.30 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶36

3 of 4

¶37

2023:PHHC:126893

¶38

CRM-M-24025-2021 (O&M)

¶39

Accordingly, order dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside and FIR No.0075 dated 11.04.2021 (Annexure P-2), registered under Section 174-A of the IPC, at Police Station, B.P.T.P, District Faridabad as well as other consequential proceedings arising therefro m against the petitioners, are quashed.

¶40

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶41

(ARUN MONGA) JUDGE

¶42

29.08.2023 Harish Kumar

¶43

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶44

HARISH KUMAR 2023.10.30 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶45

4 of 4

Umesh Kumar Jain and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Kumar Jain and Ors. 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

Puneet Gupta @ Puni Vs State of Punjab

Jyoti Vs State of Haryana

Ogbonnaya Chukwudi Emmanuel Vs State of Punjab

Arun Sahota Vs State of Punjab

Vipin Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Baljinder Singh Vs State of Punjab