Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the order declaring the petitioners as proclaimed persons and the consequential FIR under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were liable to be quashed after the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had been compromised and withdrawn, and where service of summons was not effected at the ordinary place of residence.
Analysis: The petitioners were declared proclaimed persons in proceedings arising from a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The record showed that service was not effected at their ordinary place of residence and the complaint was later compromised and withdrawn. The Court treated the non-appearance as supported by a bona fide explanation and relied on the principle that once the main complaint itself has been withdrawn after settlement, continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 would amount to abuse of the process of law.
Conclusion: The challenge succeeded and the order declaring the petitioners as proclaimed persons, together with the FIR under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings, was quashed in favour of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is withdrawn after compromise and the accused shows a bona fide cause for non-appearance, continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is unsustainable.