If Cheque Bounce Complaint Is Withdrawn, Continuing Proclamation Proceedings U/S 174A IPC Is Abuse Of Power: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reiterated that once the main petition of cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties, the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
Justice N.S. Shekhawat was hearing plea filed by Punjab realtor Jarnail Singh Bajwa, for quashing FIR under Section 174-A IPC. It was contended that a complaint of cheque bounce was lodged against Bajwa and the same was dismissed after parties entered into a settlement.
However the Bajwa was declared to be a proclaimed offender, to secure his presence before the trial Court.
Section 174A IPC, which was introduced in 2005, criminalises the non-appearance of proclaimed offenders at the specified place and time.
Counsel appearing for Bajwa Nikhil Ghai contended that since the petitioner has compromised the matter with the complainant and the complaint has already been withdrawn by the complainant, no purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC and the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed by this Court.
After hearing the submissions, the Court referred High Court's decision in Baldev Chand Bansal vs. State of Haryana and another to wherein 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 a proclaimed offender, 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Bench after relying upon various judgments observed that once the main petition under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties, the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
In the present case, the Court noted that the main case has already been withdrawn by the complainant. Consequently, the continuation of the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be abuse of process of the Court.
In the light of the above, the plea was allowed.
Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate with Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. M.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.
Title: Jarnail Singh Bajwa v. State of Punjab