Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 890 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - amicable settlement between the parties arrived at - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the judgment in BALDEV CHAND BANSAL VERSSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER US [2019 (1) TMI 1949 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] would show that in a similar case where the FIR had been registered under Section 174-A IPC in view of the order passed in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, while declaring the petitioner therein as proclaimed offender in the said proceedings, a Co-ordinate Bench after relying upon various judgments observed that once the main petition under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties, the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The said aspect was one of the main consideration for allowing the petition and setting aside the order declaring the petitioner therein as proclaimed person as well as quashing of the FIR under Section 174-A IPC - A perusal of the relevant extract of the above judgment would show that where the main case was dismissed for want of prosecution, it was observed that the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC shall be an abuse of the process of court. In the present case, it is not in dispute that respondent No.2 had filed complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 for dishonour of cheque dated 15.01.2013 amounting to ₹ 66,250/- and it is in the said proceedings that the order dated 15.11.2019 (Annexure P-4) was passed vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender and direction was given to SHO concerned to register an FIR and in pursuance of the said order, the present FIR No.691 dated 19.11.2019 (Annexure P-5) was registered under Section 174-A of the IPC - Since, the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 have been withdrawn and the present FIR has been registered on account of non-appearance of the petitioner, this Court feels that continuance of the proceedings in the present FIR would be an abuse of process of the Court. The present petition is allowed.
|