9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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petitioner and accordingly, vide order dated 16.03.2020, the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 was withdrawn.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. - CRM-M-52319-2021 - - - Dated:- 15-12-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana ORDER VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.28 dated 10.02.2020 registered under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argue the matter and assist this Court. Although, he has opposed the present petition, however, the factual aspects as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner have not been disputed. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book. From the record, 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.64 dated 15.02.2017 filed under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof as well as order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the trial Court vide which a direction was issued to register the aforesaid FIR. xxx xxx xxx Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by this Court in Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another (supra), 2017, (3) L.A.R.584, Microqual Techno Limited and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2015 (32) RCR (Crl.) 790 and Rajneesh Khanna Vs. State of Haryana and another 2017(3) L.A.R. 555 wherein in an identical circumstance, this Court has held that since the main petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Court in a case titled as Ashok Madan vs. State of Haryana and another reported as 2020(4) RCR (Criminal) 87 has also held as under:- No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the offence under Section 174A I.P.C. is independent of the main case, therefore, merely because the main case has been dismissed for want of prosecution, the present petition cannot be allowed, however, keeping in view the fact that the present FIR was registered only on account of absence from the proceedings in the main case which had been subsequently regularised by the court while granting bail to the petitioner, the default stood condoned. In such circumstances, continuation of proceedings under Section 174A I.P.C. Sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
