In CRM-M-16345-2023-PUNJ HC- P&H HC quashes FIR registered u/s 174-A IPC after parties enter into compromise & withdraw cheque dishonour complaint u/s 138 of NI Act
Justice Vikram Aggarwal [03-04-2023]

Read Order: SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

LE Correspondent

Chandigarh, April 4, 2023: While allowing the plea for for quashing an FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC,  arising out of a complaint filed under Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that even with the continuation of the FIR, no useful purpose would be served.

In this matter before the Single-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Aggarwal, initially, the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court as a result of which he was declared a proclaimed person. Subsequently the present FIR was registered against him. 

At the outset, the counsel for the petitioner contended that the matter  was compromised between the parties and the complaint under Section 138 of the Act was withdrawn vide order dated March 10, 2023. 

A complaint under Section 138 of the Act was filed by Sunil Kumar against Sanjeev Kumar. It was alleged that a cheque amounting to Rs.50, 000/- issued by the present petitioner in discharge of his liability had been dishonoured. 

Admittedly, the petitioner did not initially appear before the trial Court as a result of which he was declared a proclaimed person and the present FIR under Section 174-A IPC was registered. A perusal of the record showed that the matter under Section 138 of the Act was settled and the complaint was dismissed. 

After considering the submissions, the Court noted that the  question would be as to whether on account of the acquittal of the petitioner in the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, the present FIR deserved to be quashed.

Going by the facts of the case, it is clear that even with the continuation of the FIR, no useful purpose will be served and the interest of justice demands that the same should be quashed, the Court noted. 

Reference was placed on the judgment in Ashok Madan vs. State of Haryana and another wherein it  was  held that since the FIR under Section 174-A IPC had been registered only on account of absence from the proceedings in the main case which had been subsequently regularized by the Court while granting bail to the petitioner, the default stood condoned and, therefore, the FIR deserved to be quashed. Further reference was made to the case of Rahul Dureja and another vs. State of Punjab . 

Thus, in view of such observations stated above, the petition was allowed.