2022 (6) TMI 854 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Quashes FIR & Proceedings, Emphasizes Compromise Importance

Davindra Mahajan Versus State of Haryana

The court allowed the petition seeking the quashing of FIR No. 880 under Section 174-A of the IPC and all subsequent proceedings. It emphasized the ... Dishonor of Cheque - petitioner was not aware of the said proceedings and was declared a proclaimed person - complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has been withdrawn in view of the compromise - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is not in dispute that the complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 was filed by Sunaura Technologies Private Limited and it is in the said proceedings that the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person vide order dated 7.5.2018 and a direction was given to the concerned Police Station to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC and in pursuance of the said impugned order, present FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC, was registered. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and was subsequently arrested and released on bail. It has been held in the abovesaid judgments that in similar situation, keeping the proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC alive would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Moreover, the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person would prove to be insignificant inasmuch as the main complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 itself has been withdrawn. The present petition is allowed. Issues:1. Quashing of FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC based on compromise in the main complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Abuse of the process of law in continuing proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC after withdrawal of the main complaint.3. Legal implications of declaring a person as a proclaimed offender in connection with the FIR.Issue 1: Quashing of FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC based on compromise in the main complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments ActThe petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of FIR No. 880 dated 20.05.2019 under Section 174-A of the IPC at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram, and all consequential proceedings. The petitioner argued that since the main complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been compromised, keeping the FIR alive would be an abuse of the court's process. The petitioner was arrested, granted bail, and the main complaint was withdrawn due to compromise. Citing precedents, the petitioner sought the quashing of the FIR based on the compromise in the main complaint.Issue 2: Abuse of the process of law in continuing proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC after withdrawal of the main complaintThe State opposed the petition, stating that the FIR was registered based on the petitioner being declared a proclaimed person by a Judicial Magistrate. However, the court referred to previous judgments where it was held that continuing proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC after the withdrawal of the main complaint would amount to an abuse of the legal process. The court emphasized that once the main complaint was withdrawn due to compromise, the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A would be unjustified.Issue 3: Legal implications of declaring a person as a proclaimed offender in connection with the FIRThe court analyzed previous judgments where similar situations were addressed. It was observed that declaring a person as a proclaimed offender in connection with an FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC could become insignificant if the main complaint leading to the proclamation was subsequently withdrawn due to compromise. The court, relying on legal precedents, allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 880 dated 20.05.2019, emphasizing that the declaration as a proclaimed person was no longer relevant once the main complaint was compromised.In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, quashing the FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC and all subsequent proceedings. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering compromises in main complaints when assessing the validity of FIRs and the potential abuse of legal processes in continuing proceedings after compromises have been reached.