When prosecution of accused for non appearance before court as per S 174A of IPC can be quashed?

In the present case, petitioners are facing criminal
proceedings qua commission of offence punishable under Section
174-A IPC. It is the case of the petitioners that they had not
received the summons qua the criminal complaint under Section
138 of the Act pending against them. The moment petitioners
came to know about the same, they have paid the cheque
amount in question to the complainant and they have been
discharged in the complaint under Section 138 of the Act.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for
the petitioners has shown the reports of the Process Server and a
perusal of the same leads to the inference that the petitioners

had, in fact, not received the summons qua the pendency of
criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act.
Since in the main case, petitioners have been ordered
to be discharged in view of compromise effected between the
parties, continuation of criminal proceedings against the
petitioners under Section 174-A IPC would be nothing but an
abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 391
dated 20.6.2014, under Section 174-A IPC, registered at Police
Station Palam Vihar, Gurgaon (Annexure P-2) and all the
consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, including the order

dated 10.3.2014 (Annexure P-1) are quashed.

Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code

1[174A. Non-appearance in response to a proclamation under section 82 of Act 2 of 1974.—Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub‑section

(1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and where a declaration has been made under sub‑section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-43210 of 2014
Date of Decision: 14.9.2015.

Microqual Techno Limited Vs. State of Haryana 

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Citation:2016 CRLJ 4399

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR
No. 391 dated 20.6.2014, under Section 174-A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station
Palam Vihar, Gurgaon (Annexure P-2) and all the subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom including the order dated
10.3.2014 (Annexure P-1).
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
no service was effected upon the petitioners and simply on the
basis of presumption, it has been mentioned that service had
been effected on the petitioners. Learned counsel also submits
that a compromise has been arrived between the parties
and compromise deed has been placed on record as Annexure

P-5 and on the basis of the same, petitioners have been
discharged. Learned counsel has further submitted that the
petitioners were ready to join the Court proceedings and there
was no intention on the part of the petitioners to remain absent
or to avoid the Court proceedings.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has
opposed the petition and has submitted that petitioners were
liable to be proceeded criminally as they had deliberately not
appeared before the Trial Court.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted
that he has no objection if the criminal proceedings against the
petitioners are ordered to be quashed as the parties have
amicably settled their dispute. As per the compromise deed
Annexure P-5, complainant has been paid the cheque amount in
question and the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act' for short) has been withdrawn and
petitioners were ordered to be discharged.
In the present case, petitioners are facing criminal
proceedings qua commission of offence punishable under Section
174-A IPC. It is the case of the petitioners that they had not
received the summons qua the criminal complaint under Section
138 of the Act pending against them. The moment petitioners
came to know about the same, they have paid the cheque
amount in question to the complainant and they have been
discharged in the complaint under Section 138 of the Act.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for
the petitioners has shown the reports of the Process Server and a
perusal of the same leads to the inference that the petitioners

had, in fact, not received the summons qua the pendency of
criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act.
Since in the main case, petitioners have been ordered
to be discharged in view of compromise effected between the
parties, continuation of criminal proceedings against the
petitioners under Section 174-A IPC would be nothing but an
abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 391
dated 20.6.2014, under Section 174-A IPC, registered at Police
Station Palam Vihar, Gurgaon (Annexure P-2) and all the
consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, including the order
dated 10.3.2014 (Annexure P-1) are quashed.

(SABINA)
 JUDGE
September 14, 2015

Print Page