TRAI Issuing Directions To Enforce Regulations Is Not 'Adjudication' Of Dispute, Does Not Usurp TDSAT's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Candidate Can Challenge Selection Process After Participating If Arbitrariness Is Writ Large Or Rules Changed Mid-Way: Supreme Court Selection Committee Cannot Superimpose Additional Cut-Off Marks Not Prescribed In Rules: Supreme Court Litigants Must Ordinarily Approach High Court First For Quashing FIRs, Article 32 Is For Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Club Multiple FIRs In Cyber Fraud Case, Says Similar Modus Operandi Does Not Constitute 'Same Transaction' Layman Borrowers Not Liable For Forgery If Even Bank's Legal Experts Failed To Detect Fabrication In Title Deeds: Allahabad High Court Kerala High Court Orders Travancore Devaswom Board To Digitise Sabarimala Asset Inventory, Says Current Records Resemble 'Betel Shop' Ledger Second Husband In Void Marriage Cannot Be Prosecuted For Dowry Death Under Section 80 BNS: Allahabad High Court Cohabitation Of Barely 3 Months Insufficient To Trigger Presumption Of Live-In Relationship For Maintenance: Bombay High Court SC/ST Act Case Filed By Suspended Head Constable To 'Wreck Vengeance' Against Investigating Officers Quashed: Andhra Pradesh High Court Non-Compliance With Order For Production Of Documents Under O.11 R.14 CPC Cannot Warrant Striking Off Defence: Calcutta High Court Omission To Put Dying Declaration To Accused Under Section 313 CrPC Makes It Inadmissible, But Doesn't Demolish Entire Prosecution Case: Delhi High Court Victim's Appeal Against Magistrate's Acquittal Order Lies Before Sessions Court Under Section 413 BNSS: Gujarat High Court 'Fraud And Justice Cannot Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Quashes 30-Year-Old Land Acquisition After Records Of Compensation Go Missing Electricity Authorities Cannot Determine Civil Liability For Energy Theft Under Section 135; Only Special Court Empowered: Madhya Pradesh High Court State Cannot Exploit Employees By Keeping Them On Part-Time Basis For Decades To Deny Old Pension Scheme: Punjab & Haryana HC

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
 

Latest Legal News