IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 03.11.2025 Amit Bhatnagar ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS State of Haryana and another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. P.K. Rohilla, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 23.08.2016 whereby the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed person in complainant case bearing No.COMA-3306/2013 dated 01.07.2013 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 titled as ‘Punit Kumar Vs. Amit Bhatnagar’ passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani as well as FIR bearing No.200 dated 31.08.2016 under Section 174-A of IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station Bhiwani Civil, District Bhiwani, on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the private parties in the aforesaid criminal complaint and the said complaint already stands dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated

19.11.2024.

2. Briefly summarised, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is ₹

alleged to have borrowed a sum of 6,50,000/- from the complainant– respondent No.2 and, in discharge of the said liability, issued a cheque bearing No.11176 dated 12.03.2013 for the aforesaid amount. The said cheque was dishonoured on 12.04.2013 with the remarks “Funds Insufficient,” leading to the filing of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. During the pendency of those proceedings, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 23.08.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Safidon, and consequently, FIR No.200 dated 31.08.2016 under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Bhiwani Civil, District Bhiwani. Subsequently, a compromise was arrived at between the parties in the said complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and on the statement of the complainant, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.11.2024.

3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hitesh H. Shah versus State of Haryana and another (CRM-M- 12034-2022, decided on 13.07.2022), and submits that case of petitioner is identical on facts and law to that of the referred judgment.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Dr. (Ms.) Malvika Singh, DAG Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that the dispute is between the private parties.

6. Mr. Wazir Singh, Advocate, enters appearance on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant and files his power of attorney and the same is taken on record. He does not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties and withdrawal of the complaint before the learned trial Court.

7. It is clear that dispute between private parties regarding cheque amount has already been resolved, inasmuch as, main petition stands withdrawn by the original complainant himself on 19.11.2024, as already noticed above.

8. In Baldev Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and another (CRM-M- 43813-2018, decided on 29.01.2019), a co-ordinate Bench of this Court 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.

xxxxxxx 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 circu