Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

Pursuing FIR Under Section 174-A IPC After Settlement is 'Abuse of Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court

18 November 2024 8:24 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jarnail Singh Bajwa v. State of Punjab quashed an FIR under Section 174-A IPC registered against the petitioner, who was declared a proclaimed offender following non-appearance in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Justice N.S. Shekhawat found that pursuing the FIR after the underlying complaint was resolved would be an "abuse of the process of law."
The petitioner, Jarnail Singh Bajwa, faced a complaint for dishonor of a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Upon his failure to appear in court, he was declared a proclaimed offender, prompting the registration of an FIR under Section 174-A IPC. However, after intervention by community members, the parties settled their dispute, and the original complaint was withdrawn.
The High Court noted that once the original complaint was withdrawn, the purpose of declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender was fulfilled. Citing precedent, the Court observed that “continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC shall be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.” The decision referenced prior judgments, including Baldev Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and Ashok Madan v. State of Haryana, where similar FIRs under Section 174-A IPC were quashed following settlement in the primary case.
Limitation of Section 82 CrPC: Proclaimed Person vs. Proclaimed Offender
The Court highlighted a procedural point, noting that under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), an individual declared under such circumstances should be labeled a “proclaimed person” rather than a “proclaimed offender,” thereby adding grounds for quashing the FIR.
The High Court quashed the FIR against the petitioner, reiterating that, in cases resolved by compromise, maintaining FIRs under Section 174-A IPC serves no purpose and undermines judicial resources. This judgment reinforces the discretion of courts to prevent misuse of legal provisions post-settlement.

Date of Decision: October 22, 2024
 

Similar News