Cheque bounce case – Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A of IPC -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act withdrawn by complainant as compromised – Case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the proceedings u/s 138 of the Act of 1881 and was subsequently arrested and released on bail -- FIR u/s 174-A of the IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed/set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Quashing of FIR u/s Section 174-A – Compromise in cheque bounce case – Complaint has been dismissed as withdrawn -- Petition allowed, FIR and consequential proceedings quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.05.2022

Cheque bounce case – FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Compromise in complaint u/s 138 NI Act case – Complaint was dismissed as withdrawn – FIR u/s 174-A of IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2022

Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Compromise in Cheque bounce case – Respondent/complainant withdrew his complaint -- In such circumstances, the continuation of the prosecution of the petitioner u/s 174-A IPC would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law – Order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender and FIR registered u/s 174-A IPC are both quashed along with all subsequent proceedings.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.01.2021

Quashing of FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Settlement between parties – Entire amount of the cheque in dispute stands paid -- Complainant does not have any objection, in case, the impugned order and FIR are quashed -- Once there is an amicable settlement between the parties and the main petition u/s 138 of N.I. Act, wherein accused was declared as a proclaimed person, stands withdrawn, proceedings u/s 174-A IPC cannot be permitted to continue -- Impugned order and FIR u/s 174-A, IPC quashed along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2021

Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A of IPC – Settlement of complaint – Since the complaint u/s 138 of N.I.Act has been withdrawn, the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person has become redundant -- FIR u/s 174-A of IPC quashed along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Luxmi Devi v. State of Haryana and another

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.12.2020

Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A of IPC – Cheque bounce case -- Petitioner had challenged the order, whereby he was declared as proclaimed offender and he was allowed interim bail and later the petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous as the petitioner had appeared before the trial Court and had been granted bail – Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner u/s 174-A would be nothing but an abuse of process of law – Petition allowed and FIR u/s 174-A IPC and all consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.12.2020

Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A IPC -- Complaint u/s 138, 142 NI Act, 420 IPC compromised between the parties and the complainant has withdrawn the complaint – Held, continuation of the proceedings including the FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law -- Petition allowed, FIR u/s 174-A of IPC as well as all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.12.2020

Cheque bounce case – FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Complaint u/s 138 N.I. Act withdrawn – 'No Due Certificate' issued by the Bank shows that the entire loan amount outstanding in the name of petitioner stood cleared – Thereupon, the Bank withdrew the complaint -- In such a situation, neither the impugned order nor the consequential FIR can be sustained -- Continuation of proceedings u/s 174-A, IPC shall be nothing but an abuse of process of law – Petition allowed, impugned order and the FIR quashed alongwith all subsequent proceedings.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.10.2020

Cheque bounce case – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner ready to deposit 20% of cheque amount of Rs. 5 lacs – Petition disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court within 10 days, on doing so, he shall be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.09.2020

Cheque bounce case – Compromise in complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Quashing of FIR u/s 174- IPC -- Petition allowed FIR u/s Section 174-A IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, quashed. Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another, 2017, (3) L.A.R. 584 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.09.2020

Compromise -- Cheque bounce case – Quashing petition on the basis of compromise between the parties -- Summoning order and order declaring proclaimed person/offender quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.09.2020

Anticipatory bail in FIR u/s 174-A IPC -- Subsequently, the petitioner had surrendered before the trial Court and, thereafter, he was released on bail by the trial Court in the main case – Petition allowed, petitioner granted concession of anticipatory bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.09.2020

Cheque bounce case – Released on bail – Impounding of passport – Petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, she was granted bail and, thus, the proclamation order ceased to be operative -- Said fact was well within the knowledge of respondent-Regional Passport Office -- Fundamental Rights of the petitioner breached -- Hence, the impugned action is highly deprecated -- Petition allowed with a costs of Rs.1.00 lakh to be paid by respondent-RPO to the petitioner -- Respondent-RPO directed to release the passport of the petitioner within 15 days.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2020

Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Petitioners have shown a bona fide cause for non-appearance before the trial Court as service was not effected at the ordinary place of residence of the petitioners and they were not aware of the said fact and immediately, on coming to know about the said order, they compromised the case with the complainant and the complaint u/s 138 of the Act was withdrawn later on – Petition allowed, impugned order as well as FIR u/s 174-A IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.02.2020

Cheque bounce case -- Quashing of FIR-- Non-appearance of the petitioner before Ld. Trial Court is justified for the reason that he was not served at the given address -- After passing of the order, the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail -- Matter compromised, complainant has withdrawn the complaint u/s 138 of the NIA Act -- Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC would amount to abuse of process of law – Order declaring proclaimed person and subsequent FIR quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.10.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Quashing of FIR-- Petitioner could not appear before the trial Court as he was stated to have not been served at the address, where he was residing -- After the passing of the impugned order declaring him as a proclaimed person, he had surrendered before the trial Court and was ordered to be released on bail -- In such circumstances, especially, when the petitioner has duly surrendered before the trial Court, continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of the process of Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.09.2017

Cheque bounce case -- FIR u/s 174-A – Quashing of – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court -- Held, looking to the nature of the prosecution against the petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Act, it would make no difference if he allowed a chance to participate in the prosecution against him, without finding any fault with the trial Court's order -- Petitioner will have to furnish bail bonds with the trial Court on his appearance before the trial Court and shall attend the trial with promptitude for its disposal in accordance with law – In that view of the matter, proclamation order and consequent FIR u/s 174-A of IPC are quashed under the inherent powers of High Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.03.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Anticipatory bail -- Point for determination is whether the petitioner has been rightly declared proclaimed offender -- Otherwise also, the offence u/s 138 of the Act is bailable in nature -- Petitioner has already given an undertaking that he would submit to the process of law and would furnish the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court – Direction given to the petitioner to appear before trial court and furnish bail bond has been complied with – Interim order is made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.04.2015