Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajeev Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Another on 9 February, 2023
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-6851-2023
DECIDED ON: 09.02.2023
RAJEEV SHARMA
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Mr. Rajesh Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 has been invoked for quashing of FIR No.523, dated 27.08.2021 (Annexure P-1), under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station Sonipat City, District Sonipat as well as consequential 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 02.06.2016 (Annexure P-7) resulting into registration of the FIR in question (Annexure P-1) on 27.08.2021, under Section 174-A of the IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2023 04:48:52 ::: CRM-M-6851-2023 -2- complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 04.07.2022 (Annexure P-8), as such order dated 02.06.2016 (Annexure P-7), declaring the petitioner as PO and registration of FIR are patently illegal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the orders dated 20.07.2022 and 24.08.2022, 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 CRM-M-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versus State of Haryana and another", respectively, wherein it has been held that once the main case is dismissed as withdrawn, the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC shall be an abuse of process of law.
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 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2023 04:48:52 ::: CRM-M-6851-2023 -3- 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 shows that where the main case is dismissed for want of prosecution, then the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC shall be an abuse of the process of court.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Rekha Rani, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant and has filed Power of Attorney.
In the present case also, 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.523, dated 27.08.2021 (Annexure P-1), 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2023 04:48:52 ::: CRM-M-6851-2023 -4- under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station Sonipat City, District Sonipat, with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
09.02.2023 JUDGE
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2023 04:48:52 :::