Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act withdrawn by complainant as compromised – FIR u/s 174-A of the IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed/set aside.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

Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR -- Compromise in cheque bounce case – Complaint has been dismissed as withdrawn -- Petition allowed, FIR and consequential proceedings quashed.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case – Proclaimed person -- Quashing of FIR -- Compromise in complaint u/s 138 NI Act case – Complaint was dismissed as withdrawn – FIR u/s 174-A of IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.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 -- Proclaimed offender/ person -- 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

Sustainability of -- Without any basis, the Court formed an opinion that the petitioner is intentionally avoiding service and that he is either absconding or concealing himself -- Rather the Court was duty bound to ask the complainant to furnish his fresh address and ensure that the petitioner was duly served before commencing with the coercive process -- Held, trial Court was not required to invoke the provisions of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. -- Declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed person, and the consequent registration of the impugned FIR cannot be sustained.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2021

Settlement of complaint – Quashing of FIR -- Since the complaint u/s 138 of N.I.Act has been withdrawn, the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person has become redundant -- FIR u/s 174-A of IPC quashed along with all subsequent proceedings arising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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.12.2020

Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person -- Complaint u/s 138 N.I. Act withdrawn – 'No Due Certificate' issued by the Bank shows that the entire loan amount outstanding in the name of petitioner stood cleared – Thereupon, the Bank withdrew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 -- Proclaimed person – 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 -- Proclaimed person – 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 -- Proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. – 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