Mahavir Prasad Garg vs State Of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J.

The present petition has been filed under Sectionhe present petition has been filed under Section 482 read with482 read with Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing ofof FIR No.0646 dated 17.08.2019 registered under Section 174A of IPC at0646 dated 17.08.2019 registered under Section 174A of IPC at0646 dated 17.08.2019 registered under Section 174A of IPC at PolicePolice Station Panipat City, District Panipat, which was registered vide oStation Panipat City, District Panipat, which was registered vide oStation Panipat City, District Panipat, which was registered vide order datedrder dated 16.02.201916.02.2019 (Annexure P-2),2), passedpassed byby thethe Court of learnedlearned JudicialJudicial MagistrateMagistrate FirstFirst Class,Class, Panipat, wherebywherebywhereby thethethe petitionerpetitionerpetitioner waswaswas declareddeclareddeclared aaa proclaimed person in Complaint Nproclaimed person in Complaint No. NACT/3373/2017 titledACT/3373/2017 titled M/s. NavpreetM/s. Navpreet Textiles V/s M/s Garg Handloom,Textiles V/s M/s Garg Handloom, filed under Section 138 of thefiled under Section 138 of the NegotiableNegotiable

arising therefrom.arising therefrom.

Brief facts of the case relevant for the prelevant for the purpose of disposal of thisurpose of disposal of this petition are thatpetition are that complainant-Charanjeet Singh, proprietor of M/s. NavpreetCharanjeet Singh, proprietor of M/s. NavpreetCharanjeet Singh, proprietor of M/s. Navpreet Textiles purchased textiles goods from the petitioner, proprietor of M/s GargTextiles purchased textiles goods from the petitioner, proprietor of M/s GargTextiles purchased textiles goods from the petitioner, proprietor of M/s GargTextiles purchased textiles goods from the petitioner, proprietor of M/s Garg Handloom on credit basis and against discharge of the liability, petitioner hadHandloom on credit basis and against discharge of the liability, petitioner hadHandloom on credit basis and against discharge of the liability, petitioner hadHandloom on credit basis and against discharge of the liability, petitioner had issued 03 chequesissued 03 cheques of different amounts (in total(in total Rs.1,00,000/-) but the saidbut the said cheques were dishonouredcheques were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Consequently, thefor insufficiency of funds. Consequently, thefor insufficiency of funds. Consequently, the complaint under Sections 138complaint under Sections 138 of the N. I.. I. Act was filed against the petitioner.Act was filed against the petitioner. The petitioner was declared a proclaimed personThe petitioner was declared a proclaimed personThe petitioner was declared a proclaimed person, vide order dated 16.02.20196.02.2019 as he did not appearas he did not appear before the learned trial Court,before the learned trial Court, despite the expiry of thedespite the expiry of the mandatory period of 30 daysmandatory period of 30 days of date of publication of proclamationof date of publication of proclamation. Pursuant. Pursuant thereto, thethe impugnedimpugned FIR was alsoalso registered againstagainst thethe petitioner.petitioner. Subsequently, the maSubsequently, the matter between the parties was settled and on a statementtter between the parties was settled and on a statementtter between the parties was settled and on a statement made bymade by the complainant that the payment has been made and he seeksthe payment has been made and he seeksthe payment has been made and he seeks withdrawal of the complaintwithdrawal of the complaint, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn by, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn by, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn by the learned trial Court vide order datedthe learned trial Court vide order dated 19.02.202019.02.2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of theearned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of theearned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the settlement between the parties and withdrawal of the complaintsettlement between the parties and withdrawal of the complaintsettlement between the parties and withdrawal of the complaint by theby the complainantcomplainant, the very foundation of the proceedings no longer survives. Heof the proceedings no longer survives. Heof the proceedings no longer survives. He submits that the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person in thesubmits that the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person in thesubmits that the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person in thesubmits that the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person in the complaint case, which itself has subsequently been withdrawn pursuant to thecomplaint case, which itself has subsequently been withdrawn pursuant to thecomplaint case, which itself has subsequently been withdrawn pursuant to thecomplaint case, which itself has subsequently been withdrawn pursuant to the settlement. Learned counsel further submits that this Court, insettlement. Learned counsel further submits that this Court, insettlement. Learned counsel further submits that this Court, in various cases,various cases, has exercised its inherent jurisdiction for quashing the order declaring anhas exercised its inherent jurisdiction for quashing the order declaring anhas exercised its inherent jurisdiction for quashing the order declaring anhas exercised its inherent jurisdiction for quashing the order declaring an

underlyingunderlyingunderlyingunderlying disputedisputedisputedispute hashashashas subsequentlysubsequentlysubsequentlysubsequently beenbeenbeenbeen settledsettledsettledsettled betweenbetweenbetweenbetween thethethethe parties.parties.parties.parties. Reliance has been pReliance has been placed upon judgments passed by this Court inlaced upon judgments passed by this Court in “Smriti v.“Smriti State of Haryana and another”State of Haryana and another”,CRM-M-2050020500-2022, decided on 12.05.20222022, decided on 12.05.2022 and “Narinder Pal Singhand “Narinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab and another”,State of Punjab and another”, CRM-M-4194641946-2020,2020, decideddecided onon 26.05.202226.05.2022, whereinwherein inin similarsimilar circumstancescircumstances, FIRsFIRs registered under Section 174registered under Section 174-A IPC were quashed after settlement of the mainA IPC were quashed after settlement of the mainA IPC were quashed after settlement of the main complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is, thus,It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner byearned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner byearned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner by submitting that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order as wellsubmitting that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order as wellsubmitting that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order as wellsubmitting that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order as well asasasas inininin subsequentsubsequentsubsequentsubsequent proceedingsproceedingsproceedingsproceedings initiatedinitiatedinitiatedinitiated againstagainstagainstagainst thethethethe petitionerpetitionerpetitionerpetitioner includingincludingincludingincluding registration of impugned FIR.registration of impugned FIR. It is also argued that the petitioner is notlso argued that the petitioner is notlso argued that the petitioner is not appearing before the Trial Court and warrants of arrest were also issuedappearing before the Trial Court and warrants of arrest were also issuedappearing before the Trial Court and warrants of arrest were also issuedappearing before the Trial Court and warrants of arrest were also issued against him.against him. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions.This Court has heard the rival submissions.

The undisputed factual position emerging from the record is thatThe undisputed factual position emerging from the record is thatThe undisputed factual position emerging from the record is that the impugned FIR under Sectionthe impugned FIR under Section 174-A of IPCA of IPC owes its origin to proceedingsowes its origin to proceedings initiated in a complaint under Section 138 of theinitiated in a complaint under Section 138 of theinitiated in a complaint under Section 138 of the N. I. Act, instituted by, instituted by the complainantcomplainant against the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that duringt is also not in dispute that duringt is also not in dispute that during pendency of the said complaint, the petitioner was declared as a proclaimedpendency of the said complaint, the petitioner was declared as a proclaimedpendency of the said complaint, the petitioner was declared as a proclaimedpendency of the said complaint, the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person vide order datedperson vide order dated 16.02.2019 and, pursuant thereto, the impugned FIRand, pursuant thereto, the impugned FIRand, pursuant thereto, the impugned FIR camecame toto bebe registered.registered. AA perusalperusal ofof thethe record furtherfurther revealsreveals thatthat subsequently the parties amicably resolved their dispute andsubsequently the parties amicably resolved their dispute andsubsequently the parties amicably resolved their dispute and the complainantthe complainant

question. The order datedquestion. The order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the learned trial Court clearlypassed by the learned trial Court clearlypassed by the learned trial Court clearly records thatrecords that matter has been compromised and thebeen compromised and the complainant did not wantdid not want to continue with the said complaintto continue with the said complaint. In the aforesaid backdrop, the seminalIn the aforesaid backdrop, the seminalIn the aforesaid backdrop, the seminal question which arises for consideration is as to whether continuation ofquestion which arises for consideration is as to whether continuation ofquestion which arises for consideration is as to whether continuation ofquestion which arises for consideration is as to whether continuation of proceedings under Sectionproceedings under Section 174A of IPC174A of IPC would survive once the principalthe principal proceedings under Section 138 of theproceedings under Section 138 of the N. I. ActN. I. Act already stand withdrawn on thealready stand withdrawn on the basis of compromise between the parties.basis of compromise between the parties.

The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra.The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra. Reference can beReference can be made to authority cited asmade to authority cited as Daljit Singh v. State ofDaljit Singh v. State of Haryana and another,Haryana and another, Criminal Appeal No. 4359 of 2024, decided on 02.01.2025Criminal Appeal No. 4359 of 2024, decided on 02.01.2025Criminal Appeal No. 4359 of 2024, decided on 02.01.2025, the Hon’ble, the Hon’ble SupremeSupreme CourtCourt hashas heldheld thatthat SectionSection 174174-AA IPCIPC isis anan independent,independent, substantive offence, that can continue even if thesubstantive offence, that can continue even if thesubstantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation under Sectionunder Section 82, Cr.P.C. is extingui82, Cr.P.C. is extinguished. It is a stand-alone offence. However, the Hon'blealone offence. However, the Hon'blealone offence. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the impugnedSupreme Court quashed the impugned FIR under Section 174FIR under Section 174-A of the IPCA of the IPC since, inter alia, the original offence in the form of criminal complaint undersince, inter alia, the original offence in the form of criminal complaint undersince, inter alia, the original offence in the form of criminal complaint undersince, inter alia, the original offence in the form of criminal complaint under Section 138 ofSection 138 of N. I. Act in the said case had beenin the said case had been settled and withdrawn bysettled and withdrawn by the rival parties.the rival parties. Reliance can also be placed uponReliance can also be placed upon Mohammad Hanif AttariMohammad Hanif Attari v. State of Haryana, CRMState of Haryana, CRM-M-51049-2019, decided on 06.07.20232019, decided on 06.07.2023, whereinwherein this Court,this Court, while relying upon earlier judgments rendered inwhile relying upon earlier judgments rendered in Baldev ChandBaldev Chand Bansal v.. State of Haryana and another, CRMState of Haryana and another, CRM-M-43813-2018, decided on2018, decided on 29.01.201929.01.2019; Vikas Sharma v. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another, 2017(3). Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another, 2017(3). Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another, 2017(3) L.A.R. 584L.A.R. 584; Microqual Techno Limited and othersMicroqual Techno Limited and others v. State of Haryana andState of Haryana and another, 2015(32) RCR (Criminal) 790another, 2015(32) RCR (Criminal) 790; and; and Rajneesh Khanna Vs. State ofna Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2017(3) L.A.R. 555Haryana and another, 2017(3) L.A.R. 555Haryana and another, 2017(3) L.A.R. 555, has held that where the principalheld that where the principal complaint under Section 138 of thecomplaint under Section 138 of the N. I. ActN. I. Act stands withdrawn on account ofstands withdrawn on account of compromise, continuation of proceedings under Section 174compromise, continuation of proceedings under Section 174compromise, continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC wouldA IPC would amount to abuse ofamount to abuse of the process of law.

Similarly, in Ashok MadaanAshok Madaan v. State of Haryana and another,State of Haryana and another, 2020(4) RCR (Criminal) 872020(4) RCR (Criminal) 87, it was held by this Courtby this Court that though the offencethat though the offence under Section 174under Section 174-A IPC may be an independent offence, yet where the FIRA IPC may be an independent offence, yet where the FIRA IPC may be an independent offence, yet where the FIR had been registeredhad been registered only because of absence of the accused in the mainonly because of absence of the accused in the mainonly because of absence of the accused in the main complaint and the said complaint itself no longer survives, continuation ofcomplaint and the said complaint itself no longer survives, continuation ofcomplaint and the said complaint itself no longer survives, continuation ofcomplaint and the said complaint itself no longer survives, continuation of proceedings under Section 174proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would not serve any useful purpose andA IPC would not serve any useful purpose andA IPC would not serve any useful purpose and would amount to misuse of the process of Court.would amount to misuse of the process of Court.would amount to misuse of the process of Court. Reference may also be madence may also be made to the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner into the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner into the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in Smriti’sSmriti case (supra)case (supra)and Narinder Pal Singh’s case (supra)’s case (supra), wherein also, this Courtthis Court quashedquashedquashed FIRsFIRsFIRs registeredregisteredregistered underunderunder SectionSectionSection 174174174-AA IPCIPC afterafter settlementsettlement andand withdrawalwithdrawal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrumentsof the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrumentsof the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The ratio flowing from the aforesaid judgments squarely governsThe ratio flowing from the aforesaid judgments squarely governsThe ratio flowing from the aforesaid judgments squarely governs the present case. Once the substantive proceedings under Section 138 of thethe present case. Once the substantive proceedings under Section 138 of thethe present case. Once the substantive proceedings under Section 138 of thethe present case. Once the substantive proceedings under Section 138 of the N. I. Act have culminated in a compromisehave culminated in a compromisehave culminated in a compromise and the complaint itself has beenand the complaint itself has been withdrawn, continuation of criminal proceedings under Sectionwithdrawn, continuation of criminal proceedings under Sectionwithdrawn, continuation of criminal proceedings under Section 174A of174A of IPC wouldwouldwouldwould bebebebe whollywhollywhollywholly unjustified.unjustified.unjustified.unjustified. TheTheTheThe veryveryveryvery purposepurposepurposepurpose behindbehindbehindbehind initiationinitiationinitiationinitiation ofofofof proceedings under Sectionproceedings under Section 174A of IPC was to secure the presence of thewas to secure the presence of the petitioner in the complaint proceedings. After settlement of the dispute andpetitioner in the complaint proceedings. After settlement of the dispute andpetitioner in the complaint proceedings. After settlement of the dispute andpetitioner in the complaint proceedings. After settlement of the dispute and

permitting the impugned FIR to continue.permitting the impugned FIR to continue.

Moreso, a reference can be madeMoreso, a reference can be made to the bar contained undercontained under Section 195 Cr.P.C. A coordinate Bench of this Court inSection 195 Cr.P.C. A coordinate Bench of this Court inSection 195 Cr.P.C. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Pardeep Kumar Vs.Pardeep Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and another, CRMState of Punjab and another, CRM-M-4165641656-2023, decided on 23.08.20232023, decided on 23.08.2023, after undertaking an elaborate examination of Sections 174after undertaking an elaborate examination of Sections 174after undertaking an elaborate examination of Sections 174-A IPC and 195A IPC and 195 Cr.P.C., hasCr.P.C., has categorically held that cognizance of an offence under Sectioncategorically held that cognizance of an offence under Sectioncategorically held that cognizance of an offence under Section 174-A IPC cannot be taken except upon a complaint in writing by theA IPC cannot be taken except upon a complaint in writing by theA IPC cannot be taken except upon a complaint in writing by theA IPC cannot be taken except upon a complaint in writing by the concernedconcernedconcernedconcerned publicpublicpublicpublic servantservantservantservant orororor bybybyby aaaa publicpublicpublicpublic servantservantservantservant totototo whomwhomwhomwhom hehehehe isisisis administratively subordinate. It was observed that though Sectadministratively subordinate. It was observed that though Sectadministratively subordinate. It was observed that though Section 174-A IPCA IPC is a cognizable offence, yet the same continues to fall within the ambit ofis a cognizable offence, yet the same continues to fall within the ambit ofis a cognizable offence, yet the same continues to fall within the ambit ofis a cognizable offence, yet the same continues to fall within the ambit of SectionSectionSectionSection 195(1)(a)(i)195(1)(a)(i)195(1)(a)(i)195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C.,Cr.P.C.,Cr.P.C.,Cr.P.C., asasasas thethethethe saidsaidsaidsaid provisionprovisionprovisionprovision expresslyexpresslyexpresslyexpressly appliesappliesappliesapplies totototo offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC.offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC.offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC. It was further held thatheld that the Magistrate, athe Magistrate, after declaring an accused as proclaimed person, cannotfter declaring an accused as proclaimed person, cannotfter declaring an accused as proclaimed person, cannot simply direct the police to register an FIR under Section 174simply direct the police to register an FIR under Section 174simply direct the police to register an FIR under Section 174-A IPC and setA IPC and set the criminal law into motion through the police machinery, but is required tothe criminal law into motion through the police machinery, but is required tothe criminal law into motion through the police machinery, but is required tothe criminal law into motion through the police machinery, but is required to adoptadoptadopt thethethe procedureprocedureprocedure prescribedprescribedprescribed underunderunder SectionSectionSection 19191955 Cr.P.C.Cr.P.C. byby filingfiling aa complaint before the competent Court.complaint before the competent Court.

In the present case also, the impugned FIR under SectionIn the present case also, the impugned FIR under Section 174A174A of IPC came to be registered merely on the basis of directions issued by thecame to be registered merely on the basis of directions issued by thecame to be registered merely on the basis of directions issued by thecame to be registered merely on the basis of directions issued by the learned trial Court to the SHO concerned after decllearned trial Court to the SHO concerned after decllearned trial Court to the SHO concerned after declaring the petitioner asaring the petitioner as proclaimed person, without institution of any complaint as contemplatedproclaimed person, without institution of any complaint as contemplatedproclaimed person, without institution of any complaint as contemplatedproclaimed person, without institution of any complaint as contemplated under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Thus, the very initiation of proceedings standsunder Section 195 Cr.P.C. Thus, the very initiation of proceedings standsunder Section 195 Cr.P.C. Thus, the very initiation of proceedings standsunder Section 195 Cr.P.C. Thus, the very initiation of proceedings stands vitiated being contrary to the mandatory statutory requirement. Consequently,vitiated being contrary to the mandatory statutory requirement. Consequently,vitiated being contrary to the mandatory statutory requirement. Consequently,vitiated being contrary to the mandatory statutory requirement. Consequently,

process of law and cannot be permitted to continue.process of law and cannot be permitted to continue.process of law and cannot be permitted to continue.

Apart from the above, this Court also findsApart from the above, this Court also finds that the impugnedthat the impugned order datedorder dated 16.02.2019 was not passed strictly in accordance with law.was not passed strictly in accordance with law.

In view of the settled legal position and keeping inIn view of the settled legal position and keeping in view theview the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of thepeculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of thepeculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of thepeculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the impugned FIR and consequentialconsidered opinion that continuation of the impugned FIR and consequentialconsidered opinion that continuation of the impugned FIR and consequentialconsidered opinion that continuation of the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings would amount to abuse of the pproceedings would amount to abuse of the pproceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and miscarriage ofrocess of law and miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the present petition is allowedConsequently, the present petition is allowedConsequently, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No.06460646 dated 17.08.2019dated 17.08.2019dated 17.08.2019 registeredregisteredregistered under Section 174under Section 174under Section 174-A IPC at Police StationA IPC at Police Station Panipat City, District PanipatPanipat City, District Panipat, is hereby quashedhereby quashed along with all the subsequealong with all the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom.proceedings having emanated therefrom.