A.P Utensils Through It Properitor Lekh Raj v. State Of Haryana And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH 206+119 Decided on: January 27, 2025 1.
M/s A.P. Utensils through its Proprietor - Lekh Raj ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ......Respondents 2.
CRM-M-61607-2023 (O&M) M/s Panjeta Plastic through its Proprietor - Davinder Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ......Respondents 3.
Balaji Fertilizer Trading Company through its Proprietor - Randhir Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ......Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH ****
Present:
Mr. Sahil Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CRM-M-58784-2023 & CRM-M-616072023. None for the petitioner in CRM-M-2209-2024.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate (through Video Conferencing) and Mr. Yashir Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 in all cases. ****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1.
By this common order, three petitions bearing CRM-M-587842023, CRM-M-61607-2023 and CRM-M-2209-2024, shall be decided. 2.
The aforementioned petitions have been filed by respective petitioners, seeking quashing of FIR No. 17, dated 17.01.2017, under Sections 120-B, 409 and 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Chappar, District Yamunanagar, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 3.
The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of complaint made by respondent No. 2 - The Yamunanagar Central CoOperative Bank, Yamunanagar, with the prime allegation that the borrowers after conniving with some of the bank officials of respondent No. 2, succeeded in obtaining loans to the tune of about 5-6 crores, in a fraudulent manner.
4.
Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners in CRM-M-58784-2023 & CRM-M-61607-2023, submits that the complete loan amount payable to respondent No. 2 - Bank has already been repaid and even 'No Objection/Dues Certificates' have also been issued by respondent bank, in favour of the petitioners in the aforementioned two petitions.
Though there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner in third petition, i.e. CRM-M-2209-2024, but perusal of its paper-book reveals that 'No Dues Certificate' has also been issued by the respondent-Bank in favour of Randhir Singh, Proprietor of Balaji Fertilizer Trading Company.
5.
On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that, in fact, there are total 11 accused in the FIR (supra), and proceedings qua 03 of them have already been quashed by Co-ordinate Bench in CRM-M-52078-2018, CRM-M-46831-2018 and CRM-M-4124-2019, respectively. 6.
In view of above fact, Mr. Sahil Chaudhary, Advocate, submits that one comprehensive petition on behalf of all the remaining accused is required to be filed before this Court, based upon the settlement arrived at between the parties or on the basis of No Dues Certificates having been issued by respondent No. 2 - Bank. Thus, seeks withdrawal of the petitions filed by his clients, with liberty to file a fresh comprehensive petition on the basis of compromise/settlement with the complainant/respondent No. 2 - Bank.
7.
Accordingly, CRM-M-58784-2023 and CRM-M-61607-2023 are disposed of as having been withdrawn at this stage, with liberty to the petitioners therein, to file a fresh comprehensive petition on the basis of compromise/settlement with the complainant/respondent No. 2 - Bank. 8.
As there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner in CRM-2209-2024, the same is also disposed of, at this stage, with liberty to file a fresh comprehensive petition on the basis of compromise/settlement with the complainant/respondent No. 2 - Bank. However, right of the petitioner(s)/accused to challenge the FIR afresh by way of filing quashing petition(s) on merits, is kept intact, if they don't succeed in compromise.
All the three petitions and pending criminal miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE January 27, 2025 Pkapoor Whether speaking/reasoned?
Yes/No Whether reportable?
Yes/No