Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagat Singh vs State Of Haryana on 24 February, 2022
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.9556 of 2021(O&M)
Date of Decision: February 24 , 2022.
Jagat Singh ...... PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Haryana ...... RESPONDENT(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Rahul Rathore, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Arya, DAG, Haryana.
*****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
*****
LISA GILL, J.
Though matters were being taken up through physical hearing mode today, this matter has been taken up through video conferencing on specific request of learned counsel and in terms of circular dated 14.09.2021.
Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.1090 dated 12.09.2019 under Section 174A IPC, registered at Police Station Jagadhri City, District Yamunanagar alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom as a sequel of order dated 30.08.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yamunagar at Jagadhri in complaint No.1336-2015 (under the Negotiable Instruments Act), whereby the petitioner was declared a proclaimed 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 14:01:41 ::: CRM-M No.9556 of 2021(O&M) -2- person.
It is submitted that the petitioner, who is a senior citizen, has been unnecessarily involved in the abovesaid FIR. Matter regarding the abovesaid complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'N.I. Act') stands amicably resolved with the complainant therein.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially a criminal complaint bearing No.1336 of 2015 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was filed against the petitioner by complainant, Smt. Raj Dulari through her Special Power of Attorney holder, Kamaldeep Singh son of late Sh. Om Bir Singh, resident of village Khanpur, P.O.Kanhari Kalan, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar. Said complaint filed in the year 2015 involved an amount of `33,50,000/-. It is submitted that a compromise was effected between the petitioner and the complainant therein. The complaint was thus withdrawn by the complainant with liberty to revive the proceedings in case the four cheques issued by the petitioner under compromise were dishonoured. Copy of the order dated 26.09.2017 regarding the factum of compromise between the parties is attached as Annexure P2 with the petition. It is submitted that thereafter certain misunderstandings crept in between the petitioner and the complainant and Special Power of Attorney holder of the complainant had wrongly presented the cheques without the petitioner's knowledge due to which two of them were dishonoured. An application was moved for restoration of the complaint on which the said complaint was restored without the petitioner having knowledge of the same. It is submitted that the petitioner is a former MLA from Muzaffarnagar (Uttar Pradesh) and would occasionally visit at the address given in the complaint as he mostly remained in Lucknow in connection with his work.
2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 14:01:41 ::: CRM-M No.9556 of 2021(O&M) -3- It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that bailable warrants were issued by the learned trial court on 06.06.2019 for 18.07.2019. However, as per report it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner was out of station. On 18.07.2019, the matter was adjourned to 30.08.2019 for proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Reports dated 18.07.2019 and 01.08.2019 are attached with the petition as Annexures P3 and P4. Petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person vide impugned order dated 30.08.2019 (Annexure P5), despite the report that the petitioner was not available. The complainant had presented four different cheques. Resultantly four different FIRs under Section 174A IPC were registered against the petitioner while declaring him as a proclaimed person by the learned trial court. It is submitted that the petitioner was granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this High Court vide order dated 12.12.2019 in CRM-M No.43276 of 2019 (Annexure P6).
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the matter has again been amicably resolved between the parties and the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act stands dismissed as withdrawn on 12.10.2020. The petitioner, it is stated, has been acquitted of the notice of accusation framed against him. Reference is made to order dated 12.10.2020 passed by the learned JMIC, Jagadhri, Annexure P7. Statement of Kamaldeep Singh, Special Power of Attorney holder of Smt. Rajdulari, is also attached with the petition wherein it is specifically stated that the matter has been compromised and the complainant has received full and final payment from the petitioner. It is recorded that nothing is due from the petitioner and the complainant does not want to pursue the complaint, in question, which was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. In these circumstances, it is submitted that FIR No.1090 dated 12.09.2019 under Section 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 14:01:41 ::: CRM-M No.9556 of 2021(O&M) -4- 174A IPC, Police Station Jagadhri and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed.
Reply on behalf of the respondent-State has been filed.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Satpal Singh, P.S. Jagadhri, verifies that complaint in question stands withdrawn by the complainant and the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties.
There is no dispute that the present FIR No.1090 dated 12.09.2019 was registered against the petitioner after he was declared a proclaimed person in the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Subsequent to the said proceedings, the petitioner has admittedly been discharged by the learned trial court on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties and the complaint in question has since been dismissed as withdrawn. It also remains a debatable issue whether the petitioner has been served or not in the matter. In similar circumstances, proceedings have been quashed by this High Court in Ranbir Singh v. State of Haryana and another, 2021(3) RCR (Criminal) 81 and Ram Kumar Rana v. State of Haryana and another, 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 294. In the case titled Ashok Madan v. State of Haryana and another, 2020(4) RCR (Criminal) 87, it is observed as under:-
"No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the offence under Section 174A IPC 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 proceeding sunder Section 174A IPC shall be abuse of the process of court.
4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 14:01:41 ::: CRM-M No.9556 of 2021(O&M) -5-
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed."
The instant case presents an identical scenario where the substantive offence stands compromised and the complaint against the petitioner withdrawn. Therefore, it is considered just and expedient to allow this petition.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed and FIR No.1090 dated 12.09.2019 under Section 174A IPC, registered at Police Station Jagadhri City, District Yamunanagar alongwith all consequential proceedings are, hereby, quashed.
( LISA GILL )
February 24 , 2022. JUDGE
'om'
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 14:01:41 :::