ATUL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRM-13917-2026 For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed. Copy of order dtd. 24/9/2018 (Annexure P-7) is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned FIR, has its genesis, in a criminal complaint filed against the petitioners (herein) under Sec. 138 of the NI Act, in proceedings whereof the petitioners were declared as proclaimed persons, and hence the impugned FIR came to be got registered against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in the said case under Sec. 138 of the NI Act, the petitioners were wrongly declared as proclaimed persons, vide order dtd. 24/7/2017 (Annexure P-1) as the summons/ bailable/ non-bailable warrants were never served upon the petitioners, and even the proclamation issued against the petitioners is contrary to the provisions of Sec. 82 of the Cr. P.C. Learned counsel has further argued that, pursuant to the said order, FIR in question under Sec. 174-A of IPC has been registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that the aforesaid complaint filed by respondents No.2 and 3 against the petitioners has been dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dtd. 6/9/2017 (Annexure P-5) in view of the statement dtd. 6/9/2017 (Annexure P-6) made by the complainant.

(3.) Learned State counsel has opposed the petition in hand. He, however, does not dispute the factum of the main complaint having been dismissed as withdrawn.