CRM-M-13126-2025(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 321 CRM-M-13126-2025(O&M) Decided on :22.07.2026 Brajesh Kumar Kataria and another . . . Petitioner(s) Versus Sachin Yadav . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Gurdeep Grewal, Advocate for Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint bearing No. NACT-45139/2018 dated 19.12.2018, titled "Sachin Yadav Vs. M/s Signature Finance", under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram (Annexure P-1), as well as the summoning order dated 22.04.2019 (Annexure P-2), whereby the present petitioner has been summoned to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the impugned Notice of Accusation dated 02.12.2024 (Annexure P-3). 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, following order was passed on 03.04.2025: RASHMI 2026.07.23 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13126-2025(O&M) 2 “1. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 with a prayer for quashing of Criminal Complaint bearing No.NACT-45139/2018 dated 19.12.2018 titled as "Sachin Yadav Vs. M/s Signature Finance" under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, filed before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram (P-1), as well as summoning order dated 22.04.2019 (P-2), whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in the aforesaid complaint, alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, including impugned Notice of Accusation dated 02.12.2024 (P-3). 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that for the purpose of making investment, respondent – Sachin Yadav invested an amount of Rs.36 lacs, with the company run by the petitioners i.e. M/s Signature Finance Private Limited. When the amount was not paid as per the promise given by the petitioner’s company, post-dated cheque, bearing No.000133 dated 06.08.2018, amounting to Rs.36 lacs, was issued. It is on bouncing of the said cheque, that respondent/complainant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in which petitioners have been summoned, vide order dated 22.04.2019 (Annexure P-2). 3. Argument of counsel for the petitioners is that regarding the same transaction i.e. amount of Rs.36 lacs, complainant has lodged a criminal case also, i.e. FIR No.144 dated 11.04.2018, under Sections 405, 409, 420, 477-A and 120-B of IPC, at Police Station Civil Lines, RASHMI 2026.07.23 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13126-2025(O&M) 3 District Gurugram, and in the said case, petitioners remained inside jail for a period of about 2 years. Further submits that the position, which is there in the present case, is already being dealt by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of J. Vedhasingh vs. R.M. Govindan and others, 2022 (4) RCR (Criminal) 532, decided on 11.08.2022, wherein reference has been made to the Larger Bench, by framing following two questions:- “(1) Whether the ratio of the judgment, in the case of G. Sagar Suri (supra) and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao (supra) lay down the correct law? or The view taken in the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel (supra) as followed in M/s V.S. Reddy and Sons (supra) which is subsequent and conflicting, lay down the correct proposition of law? (2) Whether on similar set of allegations of fact the accused can be tried for an offence under NI Act which is special enactment and also for offences under IPC unaffected by the prior conviction or acquittal and, the bar of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. would attract for such trial? 4. Notice of motion for 14.05.2025. 5. Through dasti process as well. 6. Notice re: stay as well.” Thereafter, on two separate occasions, applications were moved by the petitioners seeking stay of the proceedings before the trial Court. However, said prayer was declined on both occasions. 3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the present petition, parties have amicably RASHMI 2026.07.23 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13126-2025(O&M) 4 resolved their dispute. In pursuance of the compromise, their statements were recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram on 11.05.2026. To substantiate his plea, learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the order dated 11.05.2026 passed in Criminal Case No.1807/CNR No. HRGR03-077931-2018, same is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place on the file. 4. Learned counsel further submits that, in view of the compromise having already been effected, he seeks permission to withdraw the present petition. 5. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed for. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 22.07.2026 Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RASHMI 2026.07.23 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document