CRM-M No.32497 of 2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 157 CRM-M No.32497 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision :09.07.2026 Manjit Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Daljeet Singh Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) : This is a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, whereby the quashing of FIR No.33 dated 19.02.2018, under Section 174-A of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Civil Line Bathinda, District Bathinda, has been sought. 2. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that a complaint for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘N.I. Act’, was filed against him in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bathinda, with regard to dishonour of the cheque dated 14.10.2016, amounting to Rs.6,31,813/-. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, he was never served with any summons in the abovesaid case. The petitioner has further alleged that since summons were never served upon him, he did not appear before the learned trial Court, but the learned trial Court without looking into that the petitioner was not properly served, declared him a proclaimed person, by virtue of order dated 01.02.2018, and that the abovesaid order led MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.10 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.32497 of 2026 (O&M) 2 to filing of FIR in question. 3. The petitioner has further pleaded that the matter has been compromised with the complainant vide compromise deed dated 25.02.2025, and that in the abovementioned complaint, on receipt of due amount, the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant has been duly settled. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the complaint filed by the complainant has already been withdrawn, and therefore, the same stands dismissed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 28.02.2025. 4. According to petitioner, once the main case, wherein he was summoned as accused, stands settled, the FIR in question deserves to be quashed. 5. Heard. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the main dispute between the petitioner and the complainant, was with regard to dishonour of cheque, and that the abovementioned prosecution under Section 138 of N.I. Act already stands decided, as the complaint has been withdrawn by the complainant. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, once the main case stands settled between the parties, the present FIR under Section 174-A IPC deserves to be quashed. 7. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. As per learned State Counsel mere payment of money by the petitioner to the complainant cannot absolve him of the criminal liability with regard to dis-honour of cheque. As per learned State Counsel, there is no merit in the present petition and the same deserves dismissed. 8. The record has been perused carefully. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.10 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.32497 of 2026 (O&M) 3 9. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, there is no dispute qua the fact that there was a complaint filed by the complainant against the petitioner, for the commission of offence under Section 138 of NI Act, and that in the abovementioned complaint case, the petitioner was not properly served. It is also an undisputed fact that the abovementioned complaint has already been dismissed by the learned trial Court, as the same has been withdrawn by the complainant on 28.02.2025. 10. In the backdrop of abovementioned facts, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Daljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Another’, 2025(1) RCR (Criminal) 406’, are applicable. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, while dealing with identical situation, quashed the FIR under Section 174-A IPC. 11. Taking into consideration the fact that the present case is squarely covered by the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Daljit Singh’ (supra), I hold that in the given fact-situation, once the main case stands dismissed as withdrawn, the FIR under Section 174-A of IPC amounts to abuse of process of law and deserves to be quashed. The same is hereby quashed accordingly. 12. With these observations, the present petition is hereby disposed of, accordingly. 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 09.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.10 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document