2019 (1) TMI 1949 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - matter under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands compromised - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act was compromised as the petitioner has paid the entire cheque amount to the complainant and later on the same was withdrawn on 09.09.2017, there are merit in present petition as the petitioner has also shown a bona fide cause for non-appearance before the trial Court on the date when the impugned order was passed on 24.10.2016. It is submitted that the service was not effected on the residential address of the petitioner and he was not aware of the fact and immediately on coming to know about the said order, he compromised the case with the complainant and the complaint under Section 138 of the Act was withdrawn later on. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Quashing of FIR under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought the quashing of FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017 filed under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code and all subsequent proceedings, along with the order dated 24.10.2016 directing the registration of the FIR. The petitioner argued that a compromise was reached with the complainant after appearing before the trial Court, leading to the withdrawal of the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Citing legal precedents, the petitioner contended that when a matter is compromised subsequent to the registration of an FIR, discharge is warranted. The State counsel did not dispute that the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was withdrawn after the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender. The petitioner relied on previous court decisions to support the claim that continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC would amount to an abuse of the legal process. The court noted the compromise between the parties, the withdrawal of the complaint, and the petitioner's bona fide cause for non-appearance before the trial Court due to lack of service at the residential address. Consequently, the court found merit in the petition and allowed it, quashing the impugned order and FIR along with all subsequent proceedings.

This judgment emphasizes the significance of compromises in legal proceedings, especially when subsequent to the registration of an FIR. It underscores the principle that if parties reach an amicable settlement leading to the withdrawal of a complaint, continuation of parallel proceedings may amount to an abuse of the legal process. The court considered the petitioner's genuine reasons for non-appearance, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness and the right to be heard. By quashing the FIR and related proceedings, the court upheld the principles of justice and fairness, ensuring that legal actions are not pursued when a matter has been resolved through mutual agreement.