RAHUL DUREJA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.133 dtd. 25/10/2018 registered under Sec. 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as "the IPC") at Police Station Sadar Malout as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, a complaint under Sec. 138 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 dtd. 5/2/2016 amounting to Rs.4,85,471.00. 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 dtd. 4/7/2018 (Annexure P-6), without due service having been effected. It is further submitted that even a reading of the Proclamation dtd. 9/5/2018 (Annexure P-7), would show that the proclamation proceedings were not in the name of the petitioners and only in the name of M/s Dureja Rice Mills and further date given in the same was 4/6/2018. Reference to the statement of Makhan Singh, PHG dtd. 4/6/2018 (Annexure P-8) would show that in fact, the proclamation was affixed at the house of the petitioners, which was stated to be locked, on 31/5/2018. It is further contended that even a clear period of 30 days was not given from the date of affixation i.e. from 31/5/2018 inasmuch as the case was fixed for 4/6/2018 and the same was in violation of settled law. In order to substantiate the said argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon judgment titled Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryana (P&H) ; reported as 2020 (2) RCR (Criminal) 339 and Inderjit Dhamija Vs. State of Haryana, (Punjab and Haryana); Law Finder Doc Id# 1766284.

(3.) It is further stated that the present FIR dtd. 25/10/2018 (Annexure P-9) had been registered solely on the basis of the order passed in the proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881 and that the petitioners in fact, had appeared in the proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881 and for the same, reference has been made to the order dtd. 9/7/2021 (Annexure P-10) vide which the petitioners have been granted bail on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds, which had been duly accepted and they are now facing proceedings under Sec. 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 dtd. 30/6/2021 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib. It is argued that the petitioners were never served in the proceedings under Sec. 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.14,000.00 to the complainant i.e. M/s National Trading Co., Commission Agents through its registered partner namely Mahavir Singh, on account of the delay caused in the proceedings under Ss. 138 of the Act of 1881.