9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad 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 g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1881 ). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that 1 of 7 respondent No.2 had filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Act of 1881 against the present petitioner for dishonour of cheque dated 30.01.2015 amounting to ₹ 11,000/-. It is further submitted that in the said case, as apparent from the zimni orders, the petitioner was never served and thus, the petitioner was illegally declared as proclaimed person vide order dated 20.12.2019 (Annexure P-9). It is argued that in the said order, the compliance/status report of the proceedings so taken by the police, was awaited and thereafter, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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an identical circumstance, this Court has held that since the main petition filed under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties, therefore, continuation of proceedings under Section 174A of IPC shall be nothin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 4 of 7 circumstances, continuation of proceedings under Section 174A I.P.C. Shall be abuse of the process of court. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.446 dated 21.08.2017, registered under Section 174A I.P.C. At Police Station Kotwal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant portion of the order dated 08.09.2021 is reproduced hereinbelow:- Fincruise Vs. Kiran 16047 Present: Sh. Amit Kumar Tyagi, Advocate for complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant has made a statement that he does not want to proceed further with the present complaint on the instructions of complainant company as he has received ₹ 11,000/- cash from accused regarding cheque in question and same may be dismissed as withdrawn. His statement in this regard recorded separately. Heard. In view of aforesaid statement, present complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in open court. Sd/- (Puneet Limbha), Judicial Magistrate First Class, G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
