TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 65
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....38 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1881") was filed in the year 2016 against the petitioners and M/s. Dureja Rice Mills, for the alleged dishonour of cheque dated 05.02.2016 amounting to Rs. 93,305/-. It is argued that the address of the petitioners/accused as mentioned in the said complaint was not correct. It is further argued that the petitioners were not aware about the pendency of the said case and even the zimni orders which have been annexed with the present petition, would prove that the petitioners were never served. The petitioners were declared as proclaimed persons vide order dated 05.06.2018 (Annexure P-4), without due service having been effected. It is further submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 138 of the Act of 1881. It is further contended that the petitioners had also been granted the concession of anticipatory bail in the present FIR vide order dated 30.06.2021 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib. It is argued that the petitioners were never served in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 nor had any knowledge regarding the said case and at any rate, the petitioners have already appeared in the said proceedings which are stated to be pending. Learned counsel for the petitioners has very fairly stated that the petitioners are ready to pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- to the complainant i.e. M/s. Harkewal Singh Basant Singh, Commission Agents through its registered partner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it Dhamija's case (Supra), it was held that a period of 30 days has to be given to the accused for appearance, from the date of the publication/affixation. Para 17 in Inderjit Dhamija's case (Supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:- "17. Furthermore, in the present case vide order dated 02.08.2019 proclamation was ordered to be published against the petitioners under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. requiring the petitioners to appear before the Court on 04.09.2019. The proclamation was published by SI Dharampal on 04.09.2019 and the petitioners did not get statutory minimum period of thirty days for their appearance before the Court on 04.09.2019. Vide order dated 04.09.2019 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal adjourned the case to 05.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 Kotwali, District Faridabad, as well as consequential proceedings shall stand quashed." A perusal of the above judgment would show that where FIR has been registered under Section 174-A of the IPC in view of the order passed in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, while declaring the petitioners as proclaime....