Cheque bounce case -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act withdrawn by complainant as compromised – FIR u/s 174-A of the IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed/set aside.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

Compromise in cheque bounce case – Complaint has been dismissed as withdrawn -- Petition allowed, FIR and consequential proceedings quashed.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

Compromise in complaint u/s 138 NI Act case – Complaint was dismissed as withdrawn – FIR u/s 174-A of IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.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

Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Compromise in complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- 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

Proclaimed person – 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to know about the said order, they compromised the case with the complainant and the complaint u/s 138 of the Act was withdrawn later on – Petition allowed, impugned order as well as FIR u/s 174-A IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, quashed.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 – Petitioner has undergone substantive sentence in the proceedings u/s 138 of the N. I. Act -- Petitioner made the payment to the complainant who entered into a compromise with the petitioner after his claim was satisfied, sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by him – Both F.I.R.s registered u/s 174-A IPC are hereby quashed along with all the subsequent proceedings, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 17.05.2019 Pronounced on : 21.05.2019

Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed person – 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-- After passing of the order, the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail -- Matter compromised, complainant has withdrawn the complaint u/s 138 of the NIA Act -- Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC would amount to abuse of process of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 -- Proclaimed person – 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 -- Proclaimed person -- 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