CRM-M-39316- 126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA M/s Kisan Agro Tech State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Manish Dhankar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. This petition has been filed of the impugned order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal vide which the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender as well as quashing of 174-A IPC registered at Police Station bearing No.NACT (Annexure P-9 complainant. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present FIR is the outcome of a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submits that the petitioner was declared proclaimed person vide order dated FIR No. 100, dated Station Karnal Sadar, Karnal paid the entire c -2023 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : M/s Kisan Agro Tech VERSUS Haryana HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Manish Dhankar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal vide which the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender as well as quashing of FIR No. 100, dated 08.02.2020 A IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Karnal, bearing No.NACT-6766-2018, has been withdrawn vide order dated ) because the petitioner had paid the entire amount to the Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present FIR is the outcome of a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submits that the petitioner was red proclaimed person vide order dated 18.12.2019 , dated 08.02.2020 under Section 174 Station Karnal Sadar, Karnal. It has been further contended that the petitioner had paid the entire cheque amount to the complainant and thereafter, the complainant -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39316-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision : 29.01.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Manish Dhankar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal vide which the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender as 08.02.2020 (Annexure P-1), under Section Sadar, Karnal, as the main complaint 2018, has been withdrawn vide order dated 16.05.2022 ) because the petitioner had paid the entire amount to the Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present FIR is the outcome of a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner under Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submits that the petitioner was 18.12.2019 and in pursuance thereto under Section 174-A IPC was registered at Police . It has been further contended that the petitioner had heque amount to the complainant and thereafter, the complainant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal vide which the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender as 1), under Section as the main complaint 16.05.2022 ) because the petitioner had paid the entire amount to the Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present FIR is the /142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submits that the petitioner was and in pursuance thereto at Police . It has been further contended that the petitioner had heque amount to the complainant and thereafter, the complainant TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.30 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39316- had filed an application before the trial Court and made a statement that he does not want to proceed with the present complaint and the complaint was withdrawn by him vide order dated present FIR as well as the order dated continuation of proceedings under Section 174 process of law. 3. Learned State counsel as proclaimed person, pursuant to which FIR was registered against him under Section 174-A IPC, as he had failed to appear before the Court without any reasonable cause. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have c through the material available on record. 5. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the present FIR registered under Section 174 complaint bearing complainant as the petitioner had paid the entire amount of cheque to him and the continuation of proceedings under Section 174 process of law. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘ Haryana and another’ 02.01.2025 has quashed the impugned FIR therein registered under Section 174 IPC on the ground that the initial complaint under Section 138 NI Act had been settled between 7.3 nullified i.e., the person subjected to such proclamation, by virtue of -2023 (O&M) had filed an application before the trial Court and made a statement that he does not want to proceed with the present complaint and the complaint was withdrawn by him vide order dated 16.05.2022. He, therefore, prays for quashing of the present FIR as well as the order dated 16.05.2022 continuation of proceedings under Section 174 Learned State counsel submits that the petit as proclaimed person, pursuant to which FIR was registered against him under A IPC, as he had failed to appear before the Court without any reasonable cause. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have c through the material available on record. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the present FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC on the ground that the initial complaint bearing CIS No.NACT-6766/2018 complainant as the petitioner had paid the entire amount of cheque to him and the continuation of proceedings under Section 174 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘ Haryana and another’, bearing Criminal Appeal No.4359 of 2024, decided on 02.01.2025 has quashed the impugned FIR therein registered under Section 174 IPC on the ground that the initial complaint under Section 138 NI Act had been the parties. The relevant part of which is reproduced hereunder: 7.3 Now, what happens if the status under nullified i.e., the person subjected to such proclamation, by virtue of -2- had filed an application before the trial Court and made a statement that he does not want to proceed with the present complaint and the complaint was withdrawn . He, therefore, prays for quashing of the 16.05.2022 (Annexure P-9) as the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of submits that the petitioner was rightly declared as proclaimed person, pursuant to which FIR was registered against him under A IPC, as he had failed to appear before the Court without any I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of A IPC on the ground that the initial 6766/2018 has been withdrawn by the complainant as the petitioner had paid the entire amount of cheque to him and the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Daljit Singh versus State of bearing Criminal Appeal No.4359 of 2024, decided on 02.01.2025 has quashed the impugned FIR therein registered under Section 174 IPC on the ground that the initial complaint under Section 138 NI Act had been the parties. The relevant part of which is reproduced hereunder:- Now, what happens if the status under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is nullified i.e., the person subjected to such proclamation, by virtue of had filed an application before the trial Court and made a statement that he does not want to proceed with the present complaint and the complaint was withdrawn . He, therefore, prays for quashing of the ) as the A IPC would be an abuse of ioner was rightly declared as proclaimed person, pursuant to which FIR was registered against him under A IPC, as he had failed to appear before the Court without any arefully gone By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of A IPC on the ground that the initial been withdrawn by the complainant as the petitioner had paid the entire amount of cheque to him and the A IPC would be an abuse of State of bearing Criminal Appeal No.4359 of 2024, decided on 02.01.2025 has quashed the impugned FIR therein registered under Section 174-A IPC on the ground that the initial complaint under Section 138 NI Act had been - Cr.P.C. is nullified i.e., the person subjected to such proclamation, by virtue of TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.30 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39316- subsequent developments is no longer required to be presented before a Court of law. Then, can the prosecution still proceed against such a person for having not appeared before a Court during the time that the process was in effect. The answer is in the a for the following reasons: (i) The language of at the specified place and the specified time as required by proclamation…”. This im person is directed to appear, and he does not do so, this Section comes into play; (ii) What further flows from the language employed is that the instance of non therefore, prosecution therefor would be independent of Cr.P.C. being in effect; (iii) So, while proceedings under initiated independent of post the issuance of proclamation, they can continue if the said proclamation is no longer in effect. (iv) We find that the Delh that State (NCT of Delhi)19; State GNCT of Delhi & Anr.21 For with the findings made in these judgments/orders. At the same time, it stands clarified that we have not com cases. (v) Granted that the offence prescribed in stand connection with which proceedings initiated and in the said offence the accused stands, subsequently, acquitted, it would be permissible in law for the Court seized of the trial under such offence, to take not the same as a ground to draw the proceedings to a close, should such a prayer be made and the circumstances of the case so warrant. -2023 (O&M) subsequent developments is no longer required to be presented before a Court of law. Then, can the prosecution still proceed against such a person for having not appeared before a Court during the time that the process was in effect. The answer is in the a for the following reasons:- (i) The language of Section 174A, IPC says “whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by proclamation…”. This implies that the very instance at which a person is directed to appear, and he does not do so, this Section comes into play; (ii) What further flows from the language employed is that the instance of non-appearance becomes an infraction of the Section, and therefore, prosecution therefor would be independent of Cr.P.C. being in effect; (iii) So, while proceedings under initiated independent of Section 82 post the issuance of proclamation, they can continue if the said proclamation is no longer in effect. (iv) We find that the Delhi High Court has taken this view, i.e., that Section 174A, IPC is a stand- State (NCT of Delhi)19; Divya Verma v. S State GNCT of Delhi & Anr.21 For with the findings made in these judgments/orders. At the same time, it stands clarified that we have not com cases. (v) Granted that the offence prescribed in stand-alone, given that it arises out of an original offence in connection with which proceedings initiated and in the said offence the accused stands, subsequently, acquitted, it would be permissible in law for the Court seized of the trial under such offence, to take not the same as a ground to draw the proceedings to a close, should such a prayer be made and the circumstances of the case so warrant. -3- subsequent developments is no longer required to be presented before a Court of law. Then, can the prosecution still proceed against such a person for having not appeared before a Court during the time that the process was in effect. The answer is in the affirmative. We say so , IPC says “whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by plies that the very instance at which a person is directed to appear, and he does not do so, this Section comes (ii) What further flows from the language employed is that the appearance becomes an infraction of the Section, and therefore, prosecution therefor would be independent of Section 82 (iii) So, while proceedings under Section 174A IPC cannot Section 82, Cr.P.C., i.e., can only be started post the issuance of proclamation, they can continue if the said proclamation is no longer in effect. i High Court has taken this view, i.e., -alone offence in Mukesh Bhatia v. Divya Verma v. State20; Sameena & Anr. v. State GNCT of Delhi & Anr.21 For the reasons afore-stated, we agree with the findings made in these judgments/orders. At the same time, it stands clarified that we have not commented on the merits of the (v) Granted that the offence prescribed in Section 174A IPC is indeed alone, given that it arises out of an original offence in connection with which proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is initiated and in the said offence the accused stands, subsequently, acquitted, it would be permissible in law for the Court seized of the trial under such offence, to take note of such a development and treat the same as a ground to draw the proceedings to a close, should such a prayer be made and the circumstances of the case so warrant. subsequent developments is no longer required to be presented before a Court of law. Then, can the prosecution still proceed against such a person for having not appeared before a Court during the time that ffirmative. We say so , IPC says “whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by plies that the very instance at which a person is directed to appear, and he does not do so, this Section comes (ii) What further flows from the language employed is that the appearance becomes an infraction of the Section, and Section 82, be , Cr.P.C., i.e., can only be started post the issuance of proclamation, they can continue if the said i High Court has taken this view, i.e., alone offence in Mukesh Bhatia v. Sameena & Anr. v. stated, we agree with the findings made in these judgments/orders. At the same time, it mented on the merits of the IPC is indeed alone, given that it arises out of an original offence in Cr.P.C. is initiated and in the said offence the accused stands, subsequently, acquitted, it would be permissible in law for the Court seized of the e of such a development and treat the same as a ground to draw the proceedings to a close, should such TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.30 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39316- 8. In conclusion, we hold that substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation under That being the position of OnLine Del 2619 2022 noted supra, the Appellant stands acquitted of the main offence. xxx 11. case for which his presence is required to be secured. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, i.e. that the original offence pertains to the year 2010 money subject matter of dispute stands paid, the judgment of the High Court with the particulars as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment, stands quashed and set aside. All criminal proceedings, inclusive of the FIR under Section 174A IPC, shall Appellant’s status, as a ‘proclaimed person’ stands quashed 7. Similarly, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of ‘ Kumar versus State of Punjab’ 10.01.2025 has quashed the FIR under main complaint has been withdrawn, the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. The relevant extract thereof is as under: “The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, 2023/Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is primarily aimed at preventing abuse of judicial process and securing the ends of justice. Thus, when the dispute is essentially personal in nature and a genuine compromise has been reached, the High Court may intervene to quash the crimin proceedings recognizing the continuation thereof would be non productive and unjust in the given circumstances. The inherent powers of a High Court are powers which are incidental replete powers, which if did not so exist, the Court would be obliged to -2023 (O&M) 8. In conclusion, we hold that Section 174A substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation under Section 82, Cr.P.C. is extinguished. It is a stand That being the position of 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1023 OnLine Del 2619 Crl. M.C No, 1470 of 2021, Dated 17th May, 2022 law, let us now turn to the present facts. As we have already noted supra, the Appellant stands acquitted of the main offence. xxx xxx xxx The Appellant has been acquitted which means that there is no case for which his presence is required to be secured. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, i.e. that the original offence pertains to the year 2010 money subject matter of dispute stands paid, the judgment of the High Court with the particulars as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment, stands quashed and set aside. All criminal proceedings, inclusive of the FIR under Section 174A IPC, shall Appellant’s status, as a ‘proclaimed person’ stands quashed Similarly, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of ‘ Kumar versus State of Punjab’, bearing CRM 10.01.2025 has quashed the FIR under Section 174 main complaint has been withdrawn, the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. The relevant extract thereof is as under: “The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, 2023/Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is primarily aimed at preventing abuse of judicial process and securing the ends of justice. Thus, when the dispute is essentially personal in nature and a genuine compromise has been reached, the High Court may intervene to quash the crimin proceedings recognizing the continuation thereof would be non productive and unjust in the given circumstances. The inherent powers of a High Court are powers which are incidental replete powers, which if did not so exist, the Court would be obliged to -4- Section 174A IPC is an independent, substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation , Cr.P.C. is extinguished. It is a stand-alone offence. SCC OnLine Del 1023 2023 SCC Crl. M.C No, 1470 of 2021, Dated 17th May, law, let us now turn to the present facts. As we have already noted supra, the Appellant stands acquitted of the main offence. xxx xxx xxx ellant has been acquitted which means that there is no case for which his presence is required to be secured. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, i.e. that the original offence pertains to the year 2010; the money subject matter of dispute stands paid, the judgment of the High Court with the particulars as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment, stands quashed and set aside. All criminal proceedings, inclusive of the FIR under Section 174A IPC, shall stand closed. The Appellant’s status, as a ‘proclaimed person’ stands quashed” Similarly, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of ‘Soni CRM-M-55315-2024, decided on Section 174-A IPC stating that where the main complaint has been withdrawn, the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. The relevant extract thereof is as under:- “The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, 2023/Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is primarily aimed at preventing abuse of judicial process and securing the ends of justice. Thus, when the dispute is essentially personal in nature and a genuine compromise has been reached, the High Court may intervene to quash the crimin proceedings recognizing the continuation thereof would be non productive and unjust in the given circumstances. The inherent powers of a High Court are powers which are incidental replete powers, which if did not so exist, the Court would be obliged to sit still and IPC is an independent, substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation alone offence. 2023 SCC Crl. M.C No, 1470 of 2021, Dated 17th May, law, let us now turn to the present facts. As we have already ellant has been acquitted which means that there is no case for which his presence is required to be secured. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. In the attending facts and circumstances of the ; the money subject matter of dispute stands paid, the judgment of the High Court with the particulars as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment, stands quashed and set aside. All criminal proceedings, stand closed. The Soni , decided on A IPC stating that where the main complaint has been withdrawn, the continuation of proceedings would be an “The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, 2023/Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is primarily aimed at preventing abuse of judicial process and securing the ends of justice. Thus, when the dispute is essentially personal in nature and a genuine compromise has been reached, the High Court may intervene to quash the criminal proceedings recognizing the continuation thereof would be non- productive and unjust in the given circumstances. The inherent powers of a High Court are powers which are incidental replete powers, sit still and TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.30 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39316- helplessly see the process of law and Courts being abused for the purposes of injustice. In other words; such power(s) is intrinsic to a High Court, it is its very life immanent attribute. Without such power(s), a High Court would have form b These powers of a High Court hence deserve to be construed with the widest possible amplitude. These inherent powers are in consonance with the nature of a High Court which ought to be, and has infact been, invested with power(s) to process of law/Courts being obstructed or abused. It is a trite posit of jurisprudence that though laws attempt to deal with all cases that may arise, the infinite variety of circumstances which shape events and the imperfections of language make it impossible to lay down provisions capable of governing every case, which in fact arises. A High Court which exists for the furtherance of justice in an indefatigable manner, should therefore, have unfettered power(s) to deal which, though not expressly provided for by the law, need to be dealt with, to prevent injustice or the abuse of the process of law and Courts. The juridical basis of these plenary power(s) is the authority; in fact the seminal duty and re to protect and to fulfil the judicial function of administering justice, in accordance with law, in a regular, orderly and effective manner. In other words; Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 reflects peerless powers, which an due process of law, to prevent vexation or oppression, to do justice substantial justice between the parties and to secure the ends of justice. 10. circumstances of the case in hand; especially the original offence being an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, the original offence alleged to have been committed in the year 2021, the subject matter of the origina amicably between the parties and the criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 having been -2023 (O&M) helplessly see the process of law and Courts being abused for the purposes of injustice. In other words; such power(s) is intrinsic to a High Court, it is its very life immanent attribute. Without such power(s), a High Court would have form b These powers of a High Court hence deserve to be construed with the widest possible amplitude. These inherent powers are in consonance with the nature of a High Court which ought to be, and has infact been, invested with power(s) to maintain its authority to prevent the process of law/Courts being obstructed or abused. It is a trite posit of jurisprudence that though laws attempt to deal with all cases that may arise, the infinite variety of circumstances which shape events and the perfections of language make it impossible to lay down provisions capable of governing every case, which in fact arises. A High Court which exists for the furtherance of justice in an indefatigable manner, should therefore, have unfettered power(s) to deal which, though not expressly provided for by the law, need to be dealt with, to prevent injustice or the abuse of the process of law and Courts. The juridical basis of these plenary power(s) is the authority; in fact the seminal duty and responsibility of a High Court; to uphold, to protect and to fulfil the judicial function of administering justice, in accordance with law, in a regular, orderly and effective manner. In other words; Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 reflects peerless powers, which a High Court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just an due process of law, to prevent vexation or oppression, to do justice substantial justice between the parties and to secure the ends of justice. 10. Keeping in view the entirety of the attendin circumstances of the case in hand; especially the original offence being an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, the original offence alleged to have been committed in the year 2021, the subject matter of the origina amicably between the parties and the criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 having been -5- helplessly see the process of law and Courts being abused for the purposes of injustice. In other words; such power(s) is intrinsic to a High Court, it is its very life immanent attribute. Without such power(s), a High Court would have form but lack the substance. These powers of a High Court hence deserve to be construed with the widest possible amplitude. These inherent powers are in consonance with the nature of a High Court which ought to be, and has infact maintain its authority to prevent the process of law/Courts being obstructed or abused. It is a trite posit of jurisprudence that though laws attempt to deal with all cases that may arise, the infinite variety of circumstances which shape events and the perfections of language make it impossible to lay down provisions capable of governing every case, which in fact arises. A High Court which exists for the furtherance of justice in an indefatigable manner, should therefore, have unfettered power(s) to deal with situations which, though not expressly provided for by the law, need to be dealt with, to prevent injustice or the abuse of the process of law and Courts. The juridical basis of these plenary power(s) is the authority; sponsibility of a High Court; to uphold, to protect and to fulfil the judicial function of administering justice, in accordance with law, in a regular, orderly and effective manner. In other words; Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 reflects peerless powers, a High Court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just an due process of law, to prevent vexation or oppression, to do justice substantial justice between the parties and to secure the ends of Keeping in view the entirety of the attending facts and circumstances of the case in hand; especially the original offence being an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, the original offence alleged to have been committed in the year 2021, the subject matter of the original offence having been settled amicably between the parties and the criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 having been helplessly see the process of law and Courts being abused for the purposes of injustice. In other words; such power(s) is intrinsic to a High Court, it is its very life immanent attribute. Without such ut lack the substance. These powers of a High Court hence deserve to be construed with the widest possible amplitude. These inherent powers are in consonance with the nature of a High Court which ought to be, and has infact maintain its authority to prevent the process of law/Courts being obstructed or abused. It is a trite posit of jurisprudence that though laws attempt to deal with all cases that may arise, the infinite variety of circumstances which shape events and the perfections of language make it impossible to lay down provisions capable of governing every case, which in fact arises. A High Court which exists for the furtherance of justice in an indefatigable manner, with situations which, though not expressly provided for by the law, need to be dealt with, to prevent injustice or the abuse of the process of law and Courts. The juridical basis of these plenary power(s) is the authority; sponsibility of a High Court; to uphold, to protect and to fulfil the judicial function of administering justice, in accordance with law, in a regular, orderly and effective manner. In other words; Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 reflects peerless powers, a High Court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just an due process of law, to prevent vexation or oppression, to do justice substantial justice between the parties and to secure the ends of g facts and circumstances of the case in hand; especially the original offence being an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, the original offence alleged to have been committed in the year l offence having been settled amicably between the parties and the criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 having been TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.30 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39316- withdrawn on the basis of such settlement/compromise; this Court deems it appropriate that the FIR as al therefrom deserve to be quashed.” 8. In the present case, since the original complaint related to the dishonoured cheque has been withdrawn as the petitioner had paid the entire cheque amount to the complainant, no useful purp continuing the proceedings under Section 174 9. Resultantly, the petition is allowed and (Annexure P-1), under Section 174 Karnal as well as order dated as “proclaimed person Rs.20,000/- as costs to be deposited by Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh. 10. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. . January 29, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2023 (O&M) withdrawn on the basis of such settlement/compromise; this Court deems it appropriate that the FIR as al therefrom deserve to be quashed.” In the present case, since the original complaint related to the dishonoured cheque has been withdrawn as the petitioner had paid the entire cheque amount to the complainant, no useful purp continuing the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC against the petitioner. Resultantly, the petition is allowed and 1), under Section 174-A IPC registered at Police Station as well as order dated 18.12.2019 (Annexure P as “proclaimed person” is quashed qua the petitioner as costs to be deposited by the petitioner in Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. 6 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -6- withdrawn on the basis of such settlement/compromise; this Court deems it appropriate that the FIR as also all proceedings emanating In the present case, since the original complaint related to the dishonoured cheque has been withdrawn as the petitioner had paid the entire cheque amount to the complainant, no useful purpose would be served by A IPC against the petitioner. Resultantly, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 100, dated 08.02.2020 A IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, (Annexure P-2) declaring the petitioner ” is quashed qua the petitioner subject to payment of the petitioner in Poor Patients Welfare All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No withdrawn on the basis of such settlement/compromise; this Court so all proceedings emanating In the present case, since the original complaint related to the dishonoured cheque has been withdrawn as the petitioner had paid the entire ose would be served by 08.02.2020 Sadar, 2) declaring the petitioner to payment of Poor Patients Welfare All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.30 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document