Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (5) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2019 (5) TMI 1918 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues:
Petition for quashing of complaint and summoning order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Initiation of proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; Declaration of petitioner as proclaimed person under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code; Continuation of proceedings under Section 174A I.P.C.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed a petition in the High Court seeking to quash the complaint and summoning order. Despite being exempted from personal appearance and allowed to appear through counsel, proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code due to absences from court proceedings, leading to the registration of an FIR. The petitioner appeared before the trial court, was granted bail, and the main complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution without any application for restoration being filed.

The primary issue before the Court was whether the proceedings under Section 174A I.P.C. should be allowed to continue. The Court noted that once the petitioner was granted bail and regularly appeared before the trial court, the order declaring him as a proclaimed person ceased to have effect. The Court opined that in such circumstances, the FIR registered based on the petitioner's proclamation status should also be closed to prevent an abuse of the court process.

While the respondent argued that the offence under Section 174A I.P.C. was independent of the main case and the dismissal of the main complaint should not affect the FIR, the Court disagreed. It held that since the FIR stemmed from the petitioner's absence in the main case, which was subsequently rectified by the court granting bail, the continuation of proceedings under Section 174A I.P.C. would amount to an abuse of court process. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR dated 21.08.2017 registered under Section 174A I.P.C., along with all consequential proceedings at the Police Station in District Faridabad.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates