9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 1229 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - proclaimed offender or not - amicable settlement between the parties- continuation of proceedings under Section 174A I.P.C. - HELD THAT - It is apparent that the present FIR in question had been registered on account of the petitioner having been declared as proclaimed person vide order dated 17.09.2019 passed by the SDJM in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 which were instituted in pursuance of the complaint filed by Satish Kumar and the said Satish Kumar had given a statement on 16.03.2020 (Annexure P- 4) to the effect that the matter has been compromised and there is nothing due towards the present petitioner and accordingly, vide order dated 16.03.2020, the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 was withdrawn. Where the main case was dismissed for want of prosecution, it was observed that the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC shall be an abuse of the process of court. Petition allowed.
Issues:
- Quashing of FIR under Section 174-A of IPC - Abuse of process of law due to compromise in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of FIR No.28 dated 10.02.2020 registered under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Safidon, District Jind, arising from a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner, a resident of Uttar Pradesh, was wrongly declared a proclaimed person due to non-service in the proceedings. However, a compromise was reached, and the complainant confirmed receiving the cheque amount, leading to the withdrawal of the complaint under Section 138. The State, represented by AAG Haryana, accepted the notice but opposed the petition. The Court noted the compromise and withdrawal of the complaint, emphasizing the abuse of process of law in continuing the FIR. The Court examined the order dated 16.03.2020, where the complainant stated receiving the full amount and withdrew the complaint under Section 138. The petitioner had also participated in the proceedings and was granted bail. Referring to a similar case, the Court highlighted that once a complaint under Section 138 is withdrawn due to a settlement, continuing proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC amounts to an abuse of process of law. Citing precedents, the Court emphasized the importance of amicable settlements in such cases and the need to avoid unnecessary legal proceedings. In another case, the Court considered the dismissal of the main case for want of prosecution and observed that the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC would be an abuse of the court's process. Relying on legal principles and previous judgments, the Court concluded that further proceedings in the present FIR would constitute an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, quashing FIR No.28 dated 10.02.2020 and all subsequent proceedings arising from it, based on the compromise and withdrawal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
|
