IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

291 Date of decision: 19.01.2026 SATRAJ SINGH ......Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ *****

Present: - Mr. Hardik Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

Mr. Ashish Rana, Advocate for Mr. Vishal Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

Prayer in the present petition filed by the petitioner under Section

528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for seeking quashing of complaint No.NACT/151/2017 dated 17.05.2017 (Annexure P-1) filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by respondent No.2, judgment and order dated 30.01.2020 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib and the judgment dated 29.09.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P-3) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure P-4).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that respondent No. 2–complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner, alleging that in the month of March, 2016, the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- from the complainant. In discharge of the said legally enforceable liability, the petitioner issued three cheques in favour of the complainant, namely: cheque No. 706373 dated 10.03.2017 for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-, cheque No. 706372 dated 10.03.2017 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and cheque No. 706371 dated 17.03.2017 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Upon presentation, all the aforesaid cheques were returned unpaid by the bank with the endorsement “funds insufficient”. Consequent thereto, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib. The trial culminated in the conviction of the petitioner vide judgment dated 30.01.2020, whereby the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and was further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,20,000/- to respondent No. 2–complainant. 3. It is however averred that with the intervention of the respectables from both sides, the matter has now been settled and resolved amicably. It is further submitted that the compromise amongst the parties was effected on account of free will and without any pressure and coercion.

4. Pursuant to the order dated 15.09.2025, costs of Rs. 10,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner and the receipt thereof is taken on record and report has also been received from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib vide Memo No. 200 dated 03.11.2025. The relevant extract of the report reads thus:-

“i. There is only one accused namely Satraj Singh.

ii. There is only one complainant namely Rajeshwar Parshad.

iii. Both the parties i.e. Rajeshwar Parshad and accused Satraj Singh have signed the compromise deed i.e. Ex. CX, copy of which is already before Hon'ble High Court.

iv. Apart from the complainant Rajeshwar Parshad and accused Satraj Singh, there is no other party involved in the present case.

v. No accused has been declared as proclaimed person.

vi. On the basis of said statements suffered by the parties, the compromise entered between the parties seems to be genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.”

5. Learned State counsel does not dispute the factum of the compromise amongst the parties and does not have any serious objection to the resolution of the dispute amongst the parties.

6. Mr. Ashish Rana, Advocate for Mr. Vishal Thakur, Advocate appear on behalf of respondent No. 2 and reiterate the settlement and their concurrence to the quashing of the FIR alongwith all the other consequential proceedings.

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gian Chand Garg v. Har