Rekha v. State Of Haryana And Another
! " #$%$ &'()( Rekha ...... Petitioner V/s State of Haryana and anr.
...Respondents
*+ ( , , ,
Present:
Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Himanshu Setia, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
***** , , - (
.
/ This is a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the impugned order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P33) and all other subsequent proceedings arising from complaint bearing NACT No.2458 of 2023 titled as 'Priyanka Gandhi versus Rekha' dated 30.10.2023 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act vide which the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted against the accused3 petitioner/Rekha at the instance of the complainant/respondent No.2/Priyanka Gandhi. As the accused3petitioner/Rekha did not appear before the Trial Court to face trial, she was declared as a proclaimed
person vide impugned order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P33).
3. Subsequently, the accused3petitioner approached to the complainant3respondent No.2/Priyanka Gandhi and compromised the matter. Thereafter, on 08.10.2025, the complainant3respondent No.2 suffered a statement (Annexure P34) before the JMIC, Sirsa that she has received the entire cheque amount alongwith compensation from the accused and nothing remains due to the accused. She further stated that she does not want to proceed with the complaint and therefore, she wanted to withdraw the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the complaint in question was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure P35). In view of the dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of the compromise, the present petition has been filed for quashing of the aforesaid impugned order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P33) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
4.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was compromised between the parties. On 08.10.2025, the complainant got recorded a statement before the Trial Court that since she had compromised the matter with the accused, she did not want to proceed further with the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and wanted to withdraw the same. Based on the said statement, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure P35).
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper3book.
6. From the above3said facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the impugned order was passed during the pendency of the proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act itself has been withdrawn.
7. A co3ordinate Bench of this Court in titled as "
decided on 29.01.2019 has held as under:3
!"
#$
%
"!
!"
# & "
'
)
(
% *) "
"
)
+++++++++ , "
" (
% !
"
#$% &' ($% )
&-./ ,$ 0& *+$
,* - "
-.
/%-% / 1
. '
-./ ,$
) " ""2
"&
%
"
2
!"
.0
$"
)
) *) 2"(
2 ( )
&
& " !"
$%
(
( (
"
) +++++++++ *)
2& 2
"" & )
2
(3" 4
&
%
& "
' )
!"
#$
% "!
!"
# & "
'
&
(
5 8.
A perusal of the above judgment would show that in a similar case where the FIR had been registered under Section 1743A IPC in view of the order passed in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, while declaring the petitioner therein as a proclaimed offender, a co3ordinate Bench after relying upon various judgments observed that once the main petition under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties, the continuation of proceedings under Section 1743A IPC is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The said aspect was one of the main considerations for allowing the petition and setting aside the order declaring the petitioner therein as a proclaimed person as well as for quashing of the FIR under Section 1743A IPC. 9.
Another co3ordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled as "/!
reported as
() ( "
)0has also held as under:3
( &
"
* 2
" !"
$%
2 " &
& 2 ("
2 " ( 2
)
" &
" ( )&
)*&' *)
"
)
"" ( " 2
2 " ) "
( (
" ) (
&
" "
""2
" &" !"
$%!
((
"
" $"" &
)
0
&
!"
$%$ " !
6 ) & 7
"
(& )
"
5 10.
A perusal of the relevant extract of the above judgment would show that where the main case was dismissed for want of prosecution, it was observed that the continuation of proceedings under Section 1743A IPC shall be an abuse of the process of court. A similar view has been expressed by this Court in "Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar and another, CRM3M3 587832022 decided on 06.04.2022", "Anil Kumar Versus Jitender Kumar and another, CRM3M3575532022 decided on 06.04.2022" and "Varinder Kumar @ Virender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and another, CRM3M3 4255132021 decided on 19.04.2022".
11.
In the present case the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the aforesaid complaint.
12. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and subject to a deposit of Rs.10,000/3 as costs with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority3Disaster Relief Fund, Account No.44426937384, IFSC Code:SBIN0014656, State Bank of India, Sector 68, SAS Nagar, the impugned order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P33) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner only.
, ,
# 0 . '- sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No