Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjeev Aggarwal @ Sanjeev Aggarwal vs State Of Haryana on 7 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000585
130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-65446-2024
Date of decision: 07.01.2025
Ranjeev Aggarwal @ Sanjeev Aggarwal ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pankaj Midha, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of order dated 16.11.2015
(Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal in a
complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in
short ‘the Act’) whereby, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person
along with FIR No.0134 dated 29.09.2019 under Section 174-A of IPC
registered at Police Station Sector 32-33, Karnal, District Karnal (Annexure P-
3) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner was not aware about the complaint filed by the complainant and the
summons of the said complaint were never served upon the petitioner,
therefore, he could not appear before the learned trial Court. He further
contends that on account of his non-appearance, the trial Court declared the
petitioner as proclaimed person vide order dated 16.11.2015 (Annexure P-2)
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 09-01-2025 01:14:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000585
CRM-M-65446-2024 -2-
and the intimation was further sent to SHO concerned to facilitate him to lodge
an FIR against the proclaimed person for commission of offence under Section
174-A IPC and consequently, FIR No.0134 dated 29.09.2019 under Section
174-A of IPC was registered at Police Station Sector 32-33, Karnal, District
Karnal against him. Aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 16.11.2015
(Annexure P-2) as well as the said FIR, the petitioner has approached this Court
by way of instant petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the mandate of
Section 82 Cr.P.C. has not been followed in its letter and spirit by the trial Court
and the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person on 16.11.2015. In
support of his arguments, counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment
passed by this Court in Sonu vs. State of Haryana 2021 (1) RCR (Cri.) 319
and the judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court in Govindbhai Patel Vs.
State of Gujarat 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 830. He further submits that the
matter has been compromised between the parties and the complaint filed by
the complainant has been dismissed as withdrawn by the learned trial Court
vide order dated 15.09.2022 (Annexure P-6).
4. Notice of motion.
5. Mr. Pankaj Midha, Addl.A.G., Haryana who is present in Court
accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and supports the order passed
by the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in
appearance before the trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, therefore,
having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure his
presence.
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 09-01-2025 01:14:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000585
CRM-M-65446-2024 -3-
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the case with their able assistance and with the consent of parties, the matter
is taken up for final disposal.
7. While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates
curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance
that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain a
healthy balance between personal liberty of the individual-accused and interests
of the society in promoting law and order. Such procedure must be compatible
with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not
suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
8. This Court in the judgment passed in Major Singh @ Major Vs.
State of Punjab 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406; 2023 (2) Law Herald 1506 has
held that the Court is first required to record its satisfaction before issuance of
process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and non-recording of the satisfaction itself
makes such order suffering from incurable illegality. The conditions specified
in Section 82 (2) Cr.P.C. for the publication of a proclamation against an
absconder are mandatory. Any non-compliance therewith cannot be cured as an
‘irregularity’ and renders the proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto
a nullity.
9. Learned State counsel very fairly concedes that the matter between
the parties has been compromised. The learned trial Court has recorded the
statement of the complainant with regard to the compromise effected with the
petitioner and the original complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed as
withdrawn by the learned trial Court vide order dated 15.09.2022 (Annexure P-6).
3 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 09-01-2025 01:14:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000585
CRM-M-65446-2024 -4-
10. The question which arises for consideration of this Court is
whether on account of withdrawal of the complaint under Section 138 of the
Act on the basis of compromise, the impugned order dated 16.11.2015 as well
as the said FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be
quashed?
11. The stand of learned counsel representing the petitioner is that the
petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person in contravention of the
prescribed procedure under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
petitioner was never served before the proclamation was issued under Section
82 Cr.P.C. Both the parties have settled the matter amicably which has resulted
in withdrawal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act. In the factual
backdrop of this case, undisputedly, once the substantive offence already stands
settled between the petitioner and the complainant, the impugned order dated
16.11.2015 as well as the said FIR and subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom would be of no consequence.
12. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon various
pronouncements on the issue involved in the present case. In CRM-M-43813-
2018, Baldev Chand Bansal vs. State of Haryana and another, decided on
29.01.2019, Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another, 2017, (3)
L.A.R. 584, Microqual Techno Limited and others Vs. State of Haryana
and another, 2015 (32) RCR (Crl.) 790 and Rajneesh Khanna Vs. State of
Haryana and another, 2017(3) L.A.R. 555, the Coordinate Benches of this
Court in identical circumstances, have held that since the main complaint filed
under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 09-01-2025 01:14:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000585
CRM-M-65446-2024 -5-
settlement between the parties, therefore, the impugned order and consequent
FIR under Section 174-A IPC would be of no use.
13. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vikas Gupta vs. State of
Haryana and others, while quashing the FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC
in CRM-M-19636-2018 decided on 01.08.2018 has observed the following:-
“The ultimate aim, objective and goal of a legal system is to
reconcile the social conflicts. Law is required only to ensure that people do
not have to fight with each other just to protect their right to property, right
to life and liberty and other rights secured to them by the legal system. The
civil disputes are the conflicts between two parties, having lesser overtones
for the social order, social harmony or the society as such. Hence absolute
freedom is given to the parties to settle their disputes by compromises, of
course, coming with certain legal consequences as well. However, the
criminal disputes do not necessarily restrict themselves to only two parties
to the dispute in terms of their scope, consequences and effect. The
criminal acts tend to cast their effect and consequences even upon the
society at large. Therefore, the law prescribes punishment, severe
punishments and the extreme punishments, including death penalty for
criminal acts.”
14. Moreover, the drill of Section 195 Cr.P.C. has not been followed in
the present case. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in Pardeep Kumar vs.
State of Punjab and another CRM-M No.41656 of 2023 decided on
23.08.2023, speaking through Justice Arun Monga made the following
observations:
“Invoking criminal liability for the offence under section 174A of
IPC:
xxx xxx xxx
xvii. Once the Court decides to proceed against the
petitioner for an offence under Section 174A of the IPC, it is
imperative to institute a formal written complaint in the
competent jurisdictional court. This imperative arises from
the prevailing provision of section 195 of the Code of5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 09-01-2025 01:14:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000585CRM-M-65446-2024 -6-
Criminal Procedure, 1973 which mandates that no Court
shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under
Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal
Code except on the complaint in writing of the public servant
concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is
administratively subordinate.”
15. Learned counsel representing the State has not been able to
controvert the aforesaid facts and the position of law as laid down in the
aforesaid judgment.
16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present
petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.11.2015 (Annexure P-2)
vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person as well as the FIR
No.0134 dated 29.09.2019 under Section 174-A of IPC registered at Police
Station Sector 32-33, Karnal, District Karnal (Annexure P-3) and all the
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby set aside.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
07.01.2025
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 09-01-2025 01:14:47 :::