IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Pronounced On : September 15, 2025 Sandeep Kosya .... Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.

* * *

Present : Mr. Badal Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. R. K. Singla, Addl. A. G., Haryana.

* * *

SUKHVINDER KAUR , J . :

Through the present petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.322 dated 01.04.2022, under Section 174-A IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station HTM Hisar, District Hisar, on the basis of compromise in Criminal Case NACT-913 of 2019 titled as KMA Technoware Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sandeep Kosya, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Brief facts of the case are that that respondent no.2 filed the aforesaid complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. Due to non-appearance of the petitioner in the said complaint case, he was declared proclaimed person vide order dated 21.01.2022 and accordingly, an FIR under Section 174-A was ordered to be registered against him. Thus, FIR in question was registered against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has intimated this Court that the aforesaid complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.03.2025, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, as the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into compromise. The said fact has not been disputed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-State. The said order dated 06.03.2025, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar reads as under :-

“Original file requisitioned from record room, as an application moved by learned counsel for the complainant.

Ahlmad is directed to restore the case at its original number.

At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant made a statement that he has compromised the matter with the accused so, he does not want to pursue with the present complaint and wants to withdraw the same.

Heard.

In view of the statement made by learned counsel for complainant, the present complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.

File be consigned to record room after due compliance.”

Thus, in view of aforesaid order dated 06.03.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no purpose would be achieved by continuing with the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question under Section 174-A IPC. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on a judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Hitesh H. Shah vs. State of Haryana and another – CRM-M-12034-2022 decided on 13.07.2022 and submits that the case of the petitioner is identical on facts and law to that of the referred judgment.

Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr. R. K. Singla, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State.

Short reply dated 02.07.2025, by way of affidavit of Tanuj Sharma, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hisar, on behalf of respondent no.1 – State of Haryana, has been filed in Court, which is ordered to be taken on record.

In the aforesaid short reply, factum regarding compromise between the parties has been clearly admitted in paragraph no.3.

Learned State counsel submits that aforementioned FIR has rightly been registered against the petitioner in accordance with law, by following all the provisions of Cr.P.C., and same is required to come to a logical end. However, he does not dispute the fact that the very dispute, out of which proceedings were ordered to be initiated against the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC, stands finalised and the main complaint case has already been withdrawn on 06.03.2025.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

It is clear that dispute between private parties regarding cheque amount has already been resolved, inasmuch as,