IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (123)

Date of decision:16.09.2025 Rohit Kumar …... Petitioner V/s The State of Punjab and anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Rahul Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

*****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

This is a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the impugned order dated 09.12.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by the JMIC, Ludhiana in complaint bearing COMA No.6858 of 2020 titled as ‘Sarbjit Singh versus Rohit Kumar’ under Section 138 of the N.I. Act alongwith FIR No.23 dated 06.02.2023 under Section 174-A IPC registered at Police Station Focal Point, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-3) as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted against the accused- petitioner/Rohit Kumar at the instance of the complainant/respondent No.2/ Sarbjit Singh. As the accused-petitioner/ Rohit Kumar did not appear before the Trial Court to face trial, he was declared as a proclaimed person vide impugned order dated 09.12.2022 (Annexure P-2). Subsequently, the FIR No.23 dated 06.02.2023 under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Focal Point, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-3) came to be registered against the petitioner.

3. Subsequently, the accused-petitioner approached to the complainant-respondent No.2/Sarbjit Singh and compromised the matter. Thereafter, on 18.02.2025, the complainant-respondent No.2 suffered a statement before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana that he had compromised the matter with the accused and therefore, he wanted to withdraw the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the complaint in question was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure P-6). In view of the dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of the compromise, the present petition has been filed for quashing of the aforesaid impugned order dated 09.12.2022 (Annexure P-2) and the FIR No.23 dated 06.02.2023 under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Focal Point, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-3) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was compromised between the parties. On 18.02.2025, the complainant got recorded a statement before the Trial Court that since he had compromised the matter with the accused, he did not want to proceed further with the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and wanted to withdraw the same. Based on the said statement, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure P-6).

5. The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the FIR had been correctly registered.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book.

7. From the above-said facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the present FIR was registered during the pendency of the proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act itself has been withdrawn.

8. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-43813-2018 titled as “Baldev Chand Bansal vs. State of Haryana and another”, decided on 29.01.2019 has held as under:-

“Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017 filed under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof as well as order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the trial Court vide which a direction was issued to register the aforesaid FIR.

xxx xxx xxx Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by this Court in “ Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another (supra), 2017, (3) L