2022 (2) TMI 1259 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - Seeking declaration of petitioners Ramphal and Bhoma Ram as proclaimed persons - Section 138 of the N.I. Act - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that Ramphal and Bhoma Ram have been made accused in FIR no.121 dated 13.03.2020 registered under Section 174-A IPC on account of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Bhiwani dated 22.01.2020 in the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as the above said persons had not appeared in the said proceedings and were declared as proclaimed persons. It is not in dispute that there has been compromise effected in the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been withdrawn vide order dated 03.02.2021 A perusal of the judgment in BALDEV CHAND BANSAL VERSSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER US 2019 (1) TMI 1949 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT would show that in a similar case where the FIR had been registered under Section 174-A IPC in view of the order passed in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act while declaring the petitioner therein as proclaimed offender a co-ordinate Bench after relying upon various judgments observed that once the main petition under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The said aspect was one of the main consideration for allowing the petition and setting aside the order declaring the petitioner therein as proclaimed person as well as quashing of the FIR under Section 174-A IPC. In the present case as is apparent from the facts hereinabove the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been withdrawn on account of compromise. In such a situation continuation of the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of process of Court. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order declaring petitioners as proclaimed persons and quashing of FIR under Section 174-A IPC.

Analysis:
The High Court heard two petitions filed by Ramphal and Bhoma Ram challenging the order declaring them as proclaimed persons in a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The HDFC Bank had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act against them. Both parties agreed that a compromise had been reached, and the bank withdrew the complaint. The Court noted that once a compromise had been reached in the main case, continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of process. The Court cited previous judgments where similar situations led to quashing of FIRs. In light of the compromise and legal precedents, the Court allowed both petitions, setting aside the order declaring the petitioners as proclaimed persons and quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings.

The Court emphasized that the withdrawal of the complaint due to compromise in the main case rendered the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC unjustifiable. Referring to previous judgments, the Court highlighted that when the main case is settled, pursuing proceedings under Section 174-A IPC becomes an abuse of process. The Court considered the affidavit filed by the bank confirming the compromise and lack of objections to the petitions. Relying on legal principles, the Court concluded that allowing the petitions and quashing the FIR aligned with the law and established precedents.

In the detailed analysis, the Court reviewed the circumstances of the case, the compromise reached between the parties, and the implications of continuing proceedings under Section 174-A IPC post-compromise. By referencing relevant judgments, the Court justified its decision to allow the petitions, setting aside the order declaring the petitioners as proclaimed persons and quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings. The legal principles of abuse of process in such situations were crucial in the Court's decision-making process. The comprehensive analysis considered the facts, legal arguments, and precedents to deliver a well-reasoned judgment in favor of the petitioners.