CRM-M-47735- 204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Anurudh Verma Verma in the complaint) State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. P.S.Jammu MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. This petition has been filed under Section order dated 04.10.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, vide which the petitioner was declared proclaimed NACT-1489-2018 dated 03. 01.12.2022, under Section 174 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present FIR is the outcome of a criminal complaint filed against the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submits that the petitioner was declared proclaimed person vide order dated No.1096, dated further contended that the petitioner had paid the full cheque amount to the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant’s counsel appeared before the Trial Court and stated that the matter had been amica and the complainant, following which the complaint was withdrawn vide order -2023 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : (wrongly written as Anirudh complaint) VERSUS Haryana and Another HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. P.S.Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section order dated 04.10.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, vide which the petitioner was declared proclaimed 2018 dated 03.11.2018 as well as , under Section 174-A IPC registered at Police Station 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 04.10.2022 , dated 01.12.2022 under Section 174- further contended that the petitioner had paid the full cheque amount to the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant’s counsel appeared before the Trial Court and stated that the matter had been amica and the complainant, following which the complaint was withdrawn vide order -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-47735-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioner. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of order dated 04.10.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, vide which the petitioner was declared proclaimed person in Crl. Complaint No. 11.2018 as well as quashing of FIR No.1096, dated A IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Sirsa Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present FIR is the the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submits that the petitioner was declared 04.10.2022 and in pursuance thereto FIR -A IPC was registered. It has been further contended that the petitioner had paid the full cheque amount to the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant’s counsel appeared before the Trial Court and stated that the matter had been amicably settled between the petitioner and the complainant, following which the complaint was withdrawn vide order quashing of order dated 04.10.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, in Crl. Complaint No. , dated Civil Lines, Sirsa Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present FIR is the the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submits that the petitioner was declared FIR A IPC was registered. It has been further contended that the petitioner had paid the full cheque amount to the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant’s counsel appeared before the Trial bly settled between the petitioner and the complainant, following which the complaint was withdrawn vide order TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-47735- dated 06.03.202 FIR as the continuation of proceedings under Section 174 abuse of process of law. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Mr. respondent-State and person, pursuant to which FIR was registered against him under Section 174 IPC, as he had failed to appear before the Court without any reasonable cause. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the par through the material available on record. 6. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 04.10.2022 person and the present FIR register the initial complaint bearing complainant as the petitioner had paid the entire cheque amount and the continuation of proceedings under Section 174 process of law. 7. 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 the 7.3 nullified i.e., the person subjected to such proclamation, by virtue of subsequent developments is no longer required to be presented before a Court of law. Then, can the prosecution still proceed against such a -2023 (O&M) .03.2023 (Annexure P-5). He, therefore, prays for quashing of the present FIR as the continuation of proceedings under Section 174 abuse of process of law. Notice of motion. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana State and submits that the petitioner was rightly declared as proclaimed person, pursuant to which FIR was registered against him under Section 174 IPC, as he had failed to appear before the Court without any reasonable cause. I have heard learned counsel for the par through the material available on record. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 04.10.2022 vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed the present FIR registered under Section 174 the initial complaint bearing CIS No.NACT-1489 complainant as the petitioner had paid the entire cheque amount 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 settled between 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 subsequent developments is no longer required to be presented before a Court of law. Then, can the prosecution still proceed against such a -2- ). He, therefore, prays for quashing of the present FIR as the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the that the petitioner was rightly declared as proclaimed person, pursuant to which FIR was registered against him under Section 174 IPC, as he had failed to appear before the Court without any reasonable cause. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed ed under Section 174-A IPC on the ground that 1489/2018 has been withdrawn by the complainant as the petitioner had paid the entire cheque amount 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 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 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 subsequent developments is no longer required to be presented before a Court of law. Then, can the prosecution still proceed against such a ). He, therefore, prays for quashing of the present would be an accepts notice on behalf of the that the petitioner was rightly declared as proclaimed person, pursuant to which FIR was registered against him under Section 174-A ties and have carefully gone By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed A IPC on the ground that has been withdrawn by the complainant as the petitioner had paid the entire cheque amount and the A IPC would be an abuse 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-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 subsequent developments is no longer required to be presented before a Court of law. Then, can the prosecution still proceed against such a TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-47735- person for having not appeared b the process was in effect. The answer is in the affirmative. We say so for the following reasons: 8. In substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation under That being the position of OnLine Del 2619 2022 noted supra, the Appel xxxxx 11. 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; the money subject matter of dispute stands paid, the judgment of the High Court with the particulars as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this -2023 (O&M) 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 for the following reasons:- (i) The language of Section 174A 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 employ instance of non-appearance becomes an infraction of the Section, and therefore, prosecution therefor would be independent of Section 82, Cr.P.C. being in effect; (iii) So, while proceedings under initiated independent of Section 82 started post the issuance of proclamation, they can 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 Bhatia v. State (NCT 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 cases. (v) Granted that the offence prescribed in indeed stand-alone, given that it arises out of an original offence in connection with which proceedings under 82 Cr.P.C. is initiated and in the said offence the accused stands, subsequently, acquitted, it would be 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. 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.” xxxxx 11. 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 ase, 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 -3- efore a Court during the time that the process was in effect. The answer is in the affirmative. We say so Section 174A, IPC says “whoever fails to 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 (ii) What further flows from the language employed is that the appearance becomes an infraction of the Section, and therefore, prosecution therefor would be , Cr.P.C. being in effect; under Section 174A IPC cannot be 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. (iv) We find that the Delhi High Court has taken this view, i.e., , IPC is a stand-alone offence in Mukesh of Delhi)19; Divya Verma v. Sameena & Anr. v. State GNCT of Delhi & Anr.21 stated, we agree with the findings made n these judgments/orders. At the same time, it stands clarified that we have not commented on the merits of the cases. (v) Granted that the offence prescribed in Section 174A IPC is given that it arises out of an original offence in connection with which proceedings under Section 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. Section 174A IPC is an independent, substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation is extinguished. It is a stand-alone offence. 2022 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 lant stands acquitted of the main offence.” 11. 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 ase, 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 efore 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 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 ed is that the appearance becomes an infraction of the Section, and therefore, prosecution therefor would be IPC cannot be , Cr.P.C., i.e., can only be continue if (iv) We find that the Delhi High Court has taken this view, i.e., alone offence in Mukesh Divya Verma v. Sameena & Anr. v. State GNCT of Delhi & Anr.21 stated, we agree with the findings made n these judgments/orders. At the same time, it stands clarified IPC is given that it arises out of an original Section Cr.P.C. is initiated and in the said offence the accused 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 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 11. 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 ase, 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 TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-47735- judgment, stands quashed and set aside."All criminal pro inclusive of the FIR under Section 174A IPC, shall stand closed The Appellant's status, 8. Similarly, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of ‘ Kumar versus State of Punjab’ 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 compromis 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 reple which if did not so exist, the Court would be obliged to sit still and 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 imman 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 Cour 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, 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 inde -2023 (O&M) judgment, stands quashed and set aside."All criminal pro 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 ‘ 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 compromis 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 reple which if did not so exist, the Court would be obliged to sit still and 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 imman 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 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 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 inde -4- judgment, stands quashed and set aside."All criminal proceedings, inclusive of the FIR under Section 174A IPC, shall stand closed The as a 'proclaimed person' stands quashed.” Similarly, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of ‘Soni CRM-M-55315-2024, decided on 10.01.2025 has quashed the FIR under 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 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, which if did not so exist, the Court would be obliged to sit still and 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 t 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 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, ceedings, inclusive of the FIR under Section 174A IPC, shall 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 e 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 te powers, which if did not so exist, the Court would be obliged to sit still and 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 ent 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 t 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 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 fatigable manner, TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-47735- 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 thes 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 oth 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 th 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 hav 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 withdrawn on the basis of such settl deems it appropriate that the FIR as also all proceedings emanating therefrom deserve to be quashed.” 9. In the present case, since the original complaint related to the dishonoured cheque has been withdrawn as the petitioner cheque amount to the complainant, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings under Section 174 10. Resultantly, the petition is allowed which the petiti 01.12.2022, under Section 174 -2023 (O&M) 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; 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 er 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 th justice. 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 hav 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 withdrawn on the basis of such settl deems it appropriate that the FIR as also all proceedings emanating therefrom deserve to be quashed.” In the present case, since the original complaint related to the dishonoured cheque has been withdrawn as the petitioner cheque amount to the complainant, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC against the petitioner. Resultantly, the petition is allowed oner was declared as ‘proclaimed person’ and , under Section 174-A IPC registered at -5- 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 e 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 er 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 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 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. Order dated 04.10.2022, vide oner was declared as ‘proclaimed person’ and FIR No.1096, dated A IPC registered at Civil Lines, Sirsa District Sirsa 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 e 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 er 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 e 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 e 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 ement/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 had paid the entire cheque amount to the complainant, no useful purpose would be served by . Order dated 04.10.2022, vide , dated Civil Lines, Sirsa District Sirsa TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-47735- is quashed qua the petitioner, subject to payment of costs of Rs. deposited with the Poor 11. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. March 10, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2023 (O&M) is quashed qua the petitioner, subject to payment of costs of Rs. deposited with the Poor Patients’ Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -6- is quashed qua the petitioner, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be Patients’ Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No to be All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document