Tejinder Singh Bedi v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 05.03.2021 Tejinder Singh Bedi

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present:- Mr. Munish Gulati, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Surender Singh, AAG, Haryana Amol Rattan Singh, J. (Oral) Case heard by way of video conferencing.

On 25.11.2020, the following order had been passed by this court:- 

  






 
 



 
  



 


  





 !
 " #

$
 


%





& 

'

(
 #!)%
 
*+#*,#,*,*%
  

-  
.




.


)%
-%
 

 

 ""  



 
 
.


+/



-%
  

&
  
" 
 "#

0
 
 




"





"






  
 
.


+/


-


  


  


 " 
  


 


1#
2
. 
 



%
 

   

.


34


5


 " 
 %
44 %
 

"


 

 " " 
 

 
 


 
6
,,%
,*,*%

 

 " 


 

  
 

 


,,#*!#,*,*
7 

-38#

-2-



"

#
1#

$ 

2%
9 %
 





 


  #

: 

 
  
 
.


+/


-
 

  




  


  

 

 





  "
 ;  "
 %
 
 


 " 


  

 









  "
 %





 

 %



%
 
  
 

 
  ;



1   %
 

""  
 "



 


 





  %



 

 
 
 
  #



 
 " %
  
 


  


'

(

&

%

" 
   #

 < 

*)#*3#,*, #=
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has since surrendered before the trial court and has been admitted to bail by that court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states on bar that though the order admitting the bail to the petitioner is not on record, he himself, as counsel, went along with the petitioner when the petitioner was admitted to bail by the learned trial court.

The petitioner having now surrendered before the trial court and the dispute as regards the complaint instituted under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, having been settled between the parties, this petition is allowed, with FIR no.95, dated 07.02.2020, registered at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula, alleging therein the commission of an offence punishable under Section 174-A of the IPC,

-3alongwith all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom, hereby quashed; subject however to the petitioner paying costs of Rs.10,000, to the District Legal Services Authority, Panchkula, in view of the fact that owing to the petitioner not responding to the warrants/summons issued in the complaint case, obviously the State machinery had to 'run around', and time of the court was unnecessarily wasted.

If the said cost is not paid within two weeks, this order shall be deemed to have been not passed, with a report in that regard to then be put up to this court.

05.03.2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) vcgarg JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes Whether reportable:

No