IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.10.2025 PREM KUMAR MONGA .... PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER ….RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Karan Garg, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Viney Phogat, DAG, Haryana.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

This is a petition under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the order dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Sirsa in Complaint CIS No.NACT/842/2019 dated 21.02.2019 titled Veena Rani @ Benna Vs. Prem Kumar Monga under Section 138 of the NI Act, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person.

The brief facts of the case are that in discharge of his legal liability, the petitioner/accused issued a cheque No.001965 dated 28.02.2023 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of respondent No.2-complainant. The said cheque came to be dishonoured. Pursuant thereto, as no payment was made in lieu of the dishonoured cheque, a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act came to be instituted against the petitioner/accused and he was summoned to face trial. Subsequently, he was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated

01.10.2024.

Thereafter, a compromise was effected between the parties and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the order dated 20.09.2025 (Annexure P-3). In view of the dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of the compromise, the present petition for quashing of the aforesaid order dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Sirsa.

The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that he had wrongly been declared a proclaimed person and on learning about the same, the petitioner compromised the matter with respondent No.2-complainant. Thereafter, on 20.09.2025, the counsel for respondent No.2-complainant in the Trial Court got recorded his statement that as per his instructions, the respondent No.2- complainant did not want to proceed further with the present complaint and wanted to withdraw the same. Based on the said statement, the complaint was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn on 20.09.2025 (Annexure P-3).

The learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the proclamation order has rightly been passed.

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper-book.

From the above-said facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the present FIR was registered in view of the fact that the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person in the proceeding under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The impugned complaint itself has been withdrawn.

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.A.R.584, Microqual Techno Limited and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2015 (32) RCR (Crl.) 790 and “Rajneesh Khanna Vs. State of Haryana and another” 2017(3) L.A.R. 555 wherein in an identical circumstance, this Court has held that since the main petition filed under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties, therefore, continuation of proceedings under Section 174A of IPC shall be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

xxx xxx xxx In view of the same, I find merit in the present