Lalita Aggarwal @ Sangita Aggarwal v. State Of Haryana And Another

1. "Murli Jha vs State of Haryana", 2021(3) R.C.R.(Criminal)563.

2. "Microqual Techno Limited and others vs State of Haryana", 2015

(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 790.

3. "Ram Kumar Rana vs State of Haryana and another", 2022(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 294.

4. "Ashok Madan vs State of Haryana and another", 2020(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 87.

n the case of Murli Jha (supra), it has been held as under:-

8. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. The FIR is an outcome of the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person in proceedings initiated under section 138 of NI Act which stands settled, the complaint has been withdrawn and the proceedings against the accused petitioner were dropped. In such circumstances, the continuation of prosecution under Section 174-A IPC in pursuance to the orders passed by the trial Court cannot be permitted to continue. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments of this Court in Microqual Techno R.C.R. (Criminal) 790; Rajneesh Khanna v. State of Haryana and another, 2017 (3) L.A.R. 555 and CRMM32612 of 2020, Surender Singh v. State of Haryana and

another decided 12.01.2021. "

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, itself having been compounded by the Daily Lok Adalat, and the decisions in cases of Murli Jha and (supra), continuation of proceeding in FIR No. , which has been registered consequent to order , Hisar being abuse of process of Court is quashed.