NARENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dtd. 4/1/2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jind, whereby the petitioner had been declared as proclaimed person and FIR No.80 dtd. 12/3/2019 (Annexure P-2) registered under Sec. 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as "the IPC") at Police Station Civil Line Jind, District Jind and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, a complaint was filed by Abhimanyu Redu against the present petitioner under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1881") and in the said complaint, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person vide order dtd. 4/1/2019 (Annexure P-1) and in the said order, direction was given to the SHO concerned for initiation of proceedings under Sec. 174-A of the IPC and accordingly, the FIR in question (Annexure P-2) was registered on 12/3/2019 under Sec. 174-A of the IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the complaint filed under Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881, a compromise has been effected between the parties and the payment has been made to the said Abhimanyu Redu who had appeared and made a specific statement in this regard that nothing is due from the present petitioner and that he does not wish to proceed further with the complaint and accordingly, the complaint had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dtd. 13/3/2020 (Annexure P-3).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that once the proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881 have been withdrawn, the continuation of proceedings under Sec. 174-A of IPC pursuant to the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person as well as directing the registration of the FIR in question, would be an abuse of the process of law.