VISHAL GARG Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing of FIR no.0262 dtd. 6/11/2018 registered under Sec. 174-A IPC at Police Station Civil Lines Bathinda and all the consequential proceedings arising out of the same.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner had availed a loan from HDB Financial Services Ltd. and with respect to the same, the complainant had filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(in short 'N.I.Act') read with Sec. 142 of N.I.Act and Sec. 420 IPC. It is submitted that since the address in the complaint was not correctly given, thus, the petitioner was not served and accordingly, a proclamation was issued against the petitioner on 27/8/2018 and thereafter, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda, on 20/10/2018 and the concerned SHO was directed to make necessary entry in the relevant register and to proceed under Sec. 174-A IPC against the petitioner. Accordingly, the present FIR was registered. It is further submitted that when the petitioner learnt about the registration of said FIR and proceedings under Sec. 138 N.I.Act, he had surrendered before the Court and was granted bail on the same very date, i.e. 24/5/2021. After the petitioner got the bail, he compromised the matter with the HDB Financial Services Ltd. and vide order dtd. 17/8/2021, the complaint under Sec. 138 N.I.Act was withdrawn by the complainant in view of the said compromise between the parties. Reference has been made to Annexures P-2 and P-3 which are the order as well as the statement of the complainant-HDB Financial Services Ltd. respectively, to the effect that the matter has been settled in light of which, the complaint under Sec. 138 N.I. Act was withdrawn. It is further submitted that the present FIR has been registered solely on account of the petitioner having been declared as proclaimed person in the proceedings under Sec. 138 N.I. Act and has submitted that since the FIR under Sec. 174-A IPC was registered on account of a lapse in appearing in the proceedings instituted under Sec. 138 N.I. Act and once, the main proceedings under Sec. 138 N.I. Act have been withdrawn by the complainant as the matter stands compromised, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings under Sec. 174-A IPC going.

(3.) Notice of motion.