9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 316 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - petitioner declared as proclaimed person in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - continuation of proceedings, where main case was dismissed for want of prosecution - HELD THAT - A perusal of the relevant extract of the judgment in the case of ASHOK MADAN VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 2019 (5) TMI 1918 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT would show that 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 abuse of the process of court. In the present case, the complaint had been filed by Fincruise Credit Services Private Limited against the present petitioner for dishonour of cheque dated 30.01.2015 amounting to ₹ 11,000/-. A perusal of the zimni orders moreso, the orders dated 20.08.2018 and 16.08.2019 would show that the petitioner was never served in the said proceedings. Order dated 20.12.2019 vide which, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person was thus, passed without due service of the present petitioner. FIR No.483 under Section 174-A of the IPC was registered on account of the petitioner having been declared as proclaimed person in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. The petitioner has already joined the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and has been granted bail as is apparent from order dated 02.08.2021 (Annexure P-11). The case under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 has already been compromised and the cheque amount has already been paid to the complainant and the complainant has 5 of 7 withdrawn the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 as is apparent from order dated 08.09.2021 (Annexure P-12). It is apparent that the petitioner was not duly served in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, the petitioner has also joined the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 has been withdrawn by the complainant on account of the compromise effected between the parties. In the said facts and circumstances, the continuation of proceedings in FIR registered under Section 174-A of the IPC would be an abuse of process of Court. Present petition allowed.
Issues:
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR and order declaring petitioner as proclaimed person under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash FIR No.483 dated 17.02.2020 under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code and the order declaring them as a proclaimed person in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was never served in the case, leading to an illegal proclamation as a proclaimed person. It was highlighted that the petitioner was arrested in both cases but released on bail. A compromise was reached in the Section 138 proceedings, with the complainant withdrawing the complaint after receiving the due amount. The State opposed the petition, stating that once the petitioner was declared proclaimed, registering the FIR was justified. The Court examined the arguments and precedents. A previous case, "Baldev Chand Bansal vs. State of Haryana," was cited where the Court quashed an FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC due to withdrawal of the main petition under Section 138 of the Act. The Court emphasized that continuing proceedings under Section 174-A post withdrawal of the main petition would be an abuse of the legal process. Another case, "Ashok Madan vs. State of Haryana," highlighted that if the main case was dismissed due to lack of prosecution, continuing proceedings under Section 174-A would constitute an abuse of court process. In the present case, the petitioner was not properly served in the Section 138 proceedings, leading to an erroneous proclamation. The petitioner participated in the Section 138 proceedings, and the complaint was withdrawn post-compromise. The Court noted that continuing the FIR under Section 174-A would be an abuse of court process. The petitioner's appearance in the trial court regularized their earlier non-appearance. Citing relevant judgments, the Court allowed the petition, quashing the FIR and related proceedings. The Court, based on the facts and legal principles from previous judgments, allowed the petition, quashing FIR No.483 dated 17.02.2020 and the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person. The Court emphasized the abuse of process in continuing the FIR post-compromise and regularized appearance in the trial court.
|
