Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tej Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 24 January, 2023
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-1691-2023 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 24.01.2023
TEJ SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Mr. Surjit Singh Swaich, Advocate with
Mr. Saleem Akhtar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
CRM-2244-2023 Prayer in this application is for placing on record copy of order dated 24.11.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala as Annexure P-8.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Copy of order dated 24.11.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala is taken on record as Annexure P-8.
CRM-M-1691-2023 The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 has been invoked for quashing of FIR No. 322, dated 07.12.2022 (Annexure P-1), under Section 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 28-01-2023 02:03:13 ::: CRM-M-1691-2023 (O&M) -2- 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Ambala Sadar, District Ambala, quashing of the order dated 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 31.10.2022 (Annexure P-4), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala in complaint bearing CNR No.HRAM03-005386-2019, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, a complaint was filed against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1881") and in the said complaint, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person vide order dated 31.10.2022 (Annexure P-4) and accordingly, the FIR in question (Annexure P-1) was registered on 07.12.2022 under Section 174-A of the IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.11.2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the orders dated 20.07.2022 and 24.08.2022 respectively, passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-46062-2017, titled as "Jatin Dhawan and another versus State of Haryana and another" and CRMM-12534-2022, titled as "Krishan Kumar versus State of Haryana and another", respectively wherein it has been held that once the main case is dismissed as withdrawn, the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC shall be an abuse of process of law.
2 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 28-01-2023 02:03:13 :::
CRM-M-1691-2023 (O&M) -3-
He has also placed reliance upon the orders of this Court dated 12.12.2022 and 13.12.2022 passed in CRM-M-55634-2022 titled as "Jinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another" and CRM-M-45051-2022 titled as "Hari Singh Meena Vs. State of Haryana", respectively in this regard.
Another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled as "Ashok Madan vs. State of Haryana and another" reported as 2020 (4) RCR (Criminal) 87 has also held as under:-
"No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the offence under Section 174A 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 174-A I.P.C. Shall be abuse of the process of court.
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."
A perusal of the relevant extract of the above judgment would show that where the main case was dismissed for want of prosecution, it was 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 28-01-2023 02:03:13 ::: CRM-M-1691-2023 (O&M) -4- observed that the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC shall be an abuse of the process of court.
In the present case the complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 has been dismissed as withdrawn. Once the impugned complaint has been dismissed as withdrawn and the accused stands acquitted, then the continuance of the prosecution in the FIR under Section 174-A of IPC would be an abuse of the process of Court.
Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 322, dated 07.12.2022 (Annexure P-
1), under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Ambala Sadar, District Ambala, as also the order dated 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 31.10.2022 (Annexure P-4), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala in complaint bearing CNR No.HRAM03-005386-2019, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 24.01.2023 JUDGE Poonam Negi Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 28-01-2023 02:03:13 :::