2017 (10) TMI 1593 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - non-service of notice - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Perusal of the record reveals that non-appearance of the petitioner before learned trial Court is justified for the reason that he was not served at the given address. Moreover after passing of the impugned order dated 05.09.2016 by learned trial Court the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge Ambala vide order dated 02.01.2017. Therefore in these circumstances particularly when the matter has been compromised between the parties and the respondent No.2- complainant has withdrawn the complaint under Section 138 of the NIA Act continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 174- A IPC would amount to abuse of process of law. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and FIR under Section 174-A IPC based on non-service of petitioner, anticipatory bail, compromise between parties, and abuse of process of law.

Analysis:
The petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought the quashing of an order dated 05.09.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala City, declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person in a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner was unaware of the complaint against him and was not served personally. Subsequently, the petitioner obtained anticipatory bail from the Court of Session, Ambala, as it was acknowledged by the police that the petitioner was not residing at the provided address. The petitioner argued that the matter had been settled between the parties, and the complainant had withdrawn the complaint. The petitioner relied on a previous court order in support of his contentions.

The State counsel admitted that the petitioner was not personally served due to non-residency at the given address, as confirmed by the police. Upon hearing both parties, the court noted the justified non-appearance of the petitioner before the trial court due to lack of service. Considering the grant of anticipatory bail and the withdrawal of the complaint by the complainant, the court deemed the continuation of criminal proceedings under Section 174-A IPC as an abuse of process of law. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and quashed the FIR along with all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner.

In conclusion, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that due to the petitioner not being properly served, obtaining anticipatory bail, and the withdrawal of the complaint by the complainant, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the court quashed the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person and the FIR registered against him under Section 174-A IPC, along with all subsequent proceedings.