In CRM-M-35150-2022-PUNJ HC- Once proceedings u/s 138 N.I. Act have been withdrawn, then FIR u/s 174-A IPC also deserves to be quashed: P&H HC Justice Vikas Bahl [08-08-2022]

Read Order: Mandeep Verma v. State of Haryana and another

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, August 13, 2022:  Once the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) was withdrawn owing to a compromise entered into between the parties after the amount due was paid by the accused, the FIR under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) deserves to be quashed, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held.

The Bench of Justice Vikas Bahl was dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for quashing an FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC. 

In this case, a complaint under Section 138 read with 142 of the NI Act was filed by one Amar Singh against the present petitioner and another co-accused for dishonour of the cheque amount of Rs. 25,000/-. Later, owing to his non-appearance, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person and the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal directed the police to register the FIR in respect of the same. In pursuance of the said order, the present FIR was registered. 

It was the case of the petitioner’s Counsel that after the complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed, the petitioner was never served in accordance with law and thus, he was illegally declared as proclaimed person. 

It was further submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that on learning about the said proceedings, the petitioner appeared before the trial Court and requested the complainant to appear and to receive the amount. Thereafter, as per the Counsel, the parties entered into a compromise and that the complainant appeared and suffered a statement that he had received the cheque amount as well as interest and cost amount and thus, he did not want to pursue the complaint and accordingly, complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was withdrawn. 

It was further submitted that once the complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act withdrawn, the present FIR under Section 174-A IPC deserved to be quashed.

After considering the above-stated, the Court made reference to a decision of another coordinate bench of the High Court itself wherein it was stated that the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of the process of court, where the main case was dismissed for want of prosecution. 

Adverting to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that the petitioner appeared before the trial Court in the proceedings under Section 138 the N.I. Act and requested that the complainant be directed to receive the money, following which the complainant had appeared and stated that he received the cheque amount as well as interest and cost amount and thus, he did not want to pursue the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and accordingly, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn.

Thus, in light of the above, the Court opined that once the proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act have been withdrawn, then the present FIR under Section 174-A IPC also deserves to be quashed. 

Accordingly, the present petition was allowed. 

Further, the Court stated that in this petition proceedings, notice was not issued to Amar Singh (original complainant) as he was not a necessary party inasmuch as he was not the complainant in the present FIR under Section 174-A IPC, the quashing of which was sought. 

Justice Bahl added, “… and at any rate, as is apparent from the order dated 17.03.2020, the said complainant had appeared in the proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act and had withdrawn the complaint after having received the cheque amount of Rs.25,000/- and also the interest and cost amount of Rs.15,000/-, thus, issuance of notice to him would only result in his entailing legal expenses in engaging a counsel to appear in the present matter.”