!"!#$
%%&
 '  (
)

 )%



) 
*




 
 $
+(
 %
)
%)%
 , (%
----
  

 



 
 







 


 

 






 
!


""""
%)%
 , (.
%
/ (0



#
 



$


%&!

' '
(
) (

*+
,,

-./.!/-.


%/,
%!/

-!/01

+'
(  

$

2

3  
4$
56 
0-7
$(8
$$
 )$
 (
  (
  2

!

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.2- Neeru Sehdev wife of Ram Prakash has already accepted a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of Cheques No.212636 dated 08.12.2017 and 212637 dated 08.01.2018 amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- each drawn on Punjab National Bank, Pholriwal, Jalandhar and has made a statement on 08.12.2017 in this regard before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar stating therein that she has received the cheques in full and final settlement of her claim qua the property in question against the plaintiff and other defendants RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.02.17 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order
   (petitioners herein) subject to the encashment of the cheques. She further stated in her statement that she had got registered an FIR No.66 dated 13.03.2013 under Section 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Rama Mandi, Jalandhar against the plaintiff and other defendants, and she has no objection if matter is compounded or the FIR is cancelled. She undertook also to make statement to this effect in the concerned Court or before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. The plaintiff (petitioner herein) had also undertaken to withdraw the said civil suit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that in view of the abovesaid statement, the petitioner Harvinderpal Singh had withdrawn his Civil Suit on the same day i.e. 08.12.2017 and respondent No.2 had also got encashed the abovesaid cheques in the year 2018 itself, but inspite of the same and a lapse of more than 07 years, she is not turning up to make statement before this Court qua quashing of the FIR in question. 4. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, submits that even though the respondent No.2 made a statement before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar but the said statement was made in a civil suit and the civil proceedings have no binding effect on the criminal proceedings. Criminal cause of action is a separate thing and as such, the present petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed on this score alone. He prayed accordingly. 5. Heard. 6. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 today. A perusal of the record shows that the said respondent had been duly represented by Mr. Raminder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate till 23.11.2023 but no reply has RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.02.17 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order
   been filed on behalf of the said respondent. It seems that she has no claims pending against the petitioners. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the statement dated 08.12.2017 56 
02) made by respondent No.2 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar and has also placed on record the vernacular thereof. A perusal of the said statement clearly shows that respondent No.2 had agreed to make statement before the concerned Court regarding her ‘no objection’ qua quashing of the impugned FIR. Since the said statement has been made before a Court of law, the same is per se admissible in the eyes of law. Further, according to the counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.2 has already encashed the abovementioned two cheques. In light of these facts and circumstances, no cause of action exists as on date against the petitioners and the FIR in question is liable to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and *+
,,

-./.!/-.


%/,
%!/

-!/01

+'
(  

$

2

3  
4$
56 
0-7
$(8
$$
 )$
 (
  (
  2

) 
)

 





/%)%
 , (0
*  
.
&%

































 



      
    RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.02.17 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order