9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 45 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 has been withdrawn - continuation of the proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC instituted in pursuance of the order declaring the present petitioner as proclaimed person are abuse of the process of the Court or not - HELD THAT - Once the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 have been withdrawn, then, keeping the present FIR registered under Section 174-A of the IPC alive would be an abuse of process of the Court. Even, order dated 04.07.2019 (Annexure P-2), vide which the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, deserves to be set aside. The present petition is allowed and FIR registered under Section 174-A of the IPC at Police Station Hisar City, District Hisar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and order dated passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar vide which the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person, is set aside - Petition allowed.
Issues:
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.390 dated 09.06.2020 and subsequent proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash FIR No.390 dated 09.06.2020 and subsequent proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC. The petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person without being duly served in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner compromised with the complainant in the original complaint case, leading to the withdrawal of the complaint on 16.04.2021. The petitioner argued that the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC after the withdrawal of the main complaint is an abuse of the court's process. The State opposed the petition, claiming that the impugned order and FIR were lawful. The Court referred to previous judgments where similar situations were considered. In one case, it was held that once the main petition under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 is withdrawn due to a settlement between parties, continuing proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC would be an abuse of the legal process. Another case highlighted that if the main case is dismissed for want of prosecution, continuing proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC would also amount to an abuse of the court's process. In the present case, the Court noted that the petitioner was never properly served in the original complaint proceedings. After the petitioner compromised with the complainant and the complaint was withdrawn, the continuation of the FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC was deemed unjust. Therefore, the Court allowed the petition, quashing FIR No.390 dated 09.06.2020 and subsequent proceedings. The order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person was set aside. Respondent No.2 was not issued notice as they were not the complainant in the FIR, and the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 were withdrawn based on a compromise. In conclusion, the Court found merit in the petition based on legal precedents and the circumstances of the case. The petition was allowed, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.
|
