Meena Pothireddy v. M/S Tecno Doors Pvt. Ltd.

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 06.09.2024

1. CRM-M No.52625 of 2022(O&M)

2. CRM-M No.50631 of 2022(O&M)

3. CRM-M No.52849 of 2022(O&M)

4. CRM-M No.52852 of 2022(O&M)

5. CRM-M No.52861 of 2022(O&M)

6. CRM-M No.52869 of 2022(O&M)

-27. CRM-M No.52879 of 2022(O&M)

8. CRM-M No.52899 of 2022(O&M)

9. CRM-M No.52903 of 2022(O&M)

10. CRM-M No.52909 of 2022(O&M)

11. CRM-M No.52915 of 2022(O&M)

12. CRM-M No.52918 of 2022(O&M)

-313. CRM-M No.52932 of 2022(O&M)

14. CRM-M No.52938 of 2022(O&M)

15. CRM-M No.52959 of 2022(O&M)

16. CRM-M No.54665 of 2022(O&M)

17. CRM-M No.54668 of 2022(O&M)

18. CRM-M No.54671 of 2022(O&M)

-419. CRM-M No.54673 of 2022(O&M)

20. CRM-M No.52625 of 2022(O&M)

21. CRM-M No.55095 of 2022(O&M)

22. CRM-M No.55100 of 2022(O&M)

23. CRM-M No.55129 of 2022(O&M)

24. CRM-M No.55134 of 2022(O&M)

-525. CRM-M No.55137 of 2022(O&M)

26. CRM-M No.55145 of 2022(O&M)

27. CRM-M No.55147 of 2022(O&M)

28. CRM-M No.55154 of 2022(O&M)

29. CRM-M No.55160 of 2022(O&M)

30. CRM-M No.55163 of 2022(O&M)

-631. CRM-M No.55283 of 2022(O&M)

32. CRM-M No.50602 of 2022(O&M)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Ms. Akansha Pal, Advocate for Mr. Deepam Raghav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sharat Kapoor, Advocate (Through VC) with Mr. Satyam Tandon, Advocate for the respondent.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

Complaint No. NACT-7244 - 2017, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Case Seeking quashing of order dated 25.05.2017 vide which the petitioner was summoned to face trial in case captioned above and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, the petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that she has settled all the disputes with the complainant.

3.

Counsel for the complainant submits that a settlement has taken place in mediation and the said settlement be taken on record, so that in case the petitioneraccused resile from the said settlement, they are able to avail appropriate legal remedy in

-7accordance with law. Counsel for the complainant further submits that the terms of settlement spans over a period of 03 years, as such, they would be making an application before the trial Court to adjourn the complaint sine die with liberty reserved to the petitioner(s) to revive the same and also as and when terms of settlement are completed, he would be asking for its closing and in the alternative, they would be seeking liberty to file fresh complaint with clarification that in case the fresh complaints are filed, previous complaints should not come in the way.

4.

Prayer for the complaint cannot be dealt with by this Court. It is for the concerned Court to pass an appropriate order in this regard and he is at liberty to make such submissions before the trial Court. It is the complaint of the respondent and he is at liberty to make prayer for sine die, withdrawal or any other such prayer. This Court can only say that parties shall remain bound by this settlement. 4.

Given above, the present petition is disposed of as withdrawn. All interim orders stand vacated and mediation settlement is taken on record and parties shall remain bound by their undertaking(s). All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 06.09.2024 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No.