In a landmark ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed FIR No. 0064 dated February 24, 2021, lodged under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Jarnail Singh Bajwa. The court deemed the continuation of these proceedings, following an out-of-court settlement in the original cheque bounce case, to be an “abuse of law.”
The judgment, delivered by Justice N.S. Shekhawat, highlighted the importance of judicial restraint in cases where the primary dispute has been resolved through compromise. According to Justice Shekhawat, ongoing legal actions after such resolutions place undue burdens on both the parties involved and the legal system, especially when they no longer serve a judicial purpose.
Background of the Case
The proceedings stemmed from an initial complaint filed by Dayal Singh against Jarnail Singh Bajwa under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint involved allegations of a dishonoured cheque connected to a property sale agreement. Bajwa, who was absent from initial court proceedings, was subsequently declared a proclaimed offender, leading to the registration of FIR No. 0064 in 2021 at Police Station City Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, under Section 174-A IPC.
However, the parties reached a mutual settlement outside of court, and Dayal Singh formally withdrew the complaint on January 21, 2022. With the trial court dismissing the original complaint following the settlement, Bajwa’s legal team sought to quash the FIR and all ensuing proceedings under Section 174-A IPC.
Key Legal Issues and Arguments
1. Validity of Section 174-A IPC Proceedings After Settlement
Bajwa’s counsel, Mr. Nikhil Ghai and Mr. Navjot Singh, contended that continuing the FIR proceedings under Section 174-A IPC was unnecessary and legally baseless after the amicable resolution of the main complaint. They cited precedents where courts had quashed FIRs in similar cases to prevent further misuse of legal resources.
2. Judicial Precedents on Quashing Proceedings
The petitioner’s legal team referenced multiple High Court rulings, notably Baldev Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana, where it was held that FIRs under Section 174-A should be quashed when the primary complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been withdrawn. The counsel argued that enforcing such FIRs despite settlements constitutes a judicial overreach and undermines the purpose of Section 174-A IPC.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Shekhawat noted, “Continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC after an amicable settlement in the main case amounts to an abuse of the process of law.” He emphasized that the core purpose of declaring an individual a proclaimed offender is to secure their presence in court. Once the petitioner had cooperated and settled the primary matter, continuing with the FIR was deemed unwarranted.
Justice Shekhawat also referenced recent cases where similar petitions were granted relief, reinforcing that applying Section 174-A IPC in cases with resolved Section 138 matters could create unnecessary legal complications. Furthermore, the judge highlighted Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which limits declarations of individuals as proclaimed persons, not proclaimed offenders, in such cases.
In light of the settlement between the parties and established judicial precedents, the High Court quashed FIR No. 0064 dated February 24, 2021, and all subsequent proceedings arising from it.
