CRM M 2318 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M 2318 of 2010 Date of Decision:09.08.2010 Puneet Mudgal .... Petitioner Versus Swatenter Raj Passy and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. R S Bains, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint No. 3322T dated 16.09.2005 titled as Swatenter Raj Passy v. Puneet Mudgal, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala (Annexure P2). During the hearing of the case, a compromise was arrived at between the parties. It was agreed before this Court that the respondent/complainant will compound the offence and has no objection if the complainant was quashed in case the petitioner was ready to pay Rs.6,00,000/- as the full and final payment towards the dishonoured cheque CRM M 2318 of 2010 2 which included interest etc. Accordingly, on 19.07.2010, the respective parties were present in the Court along with their counsels and on the said date, a separate statement of complainant/respondent No.1 and the petitioner was duly recorded. In his statement, Respondent No. 1 stated that he has received a draft of Rs.3,25,000 bearing No. 134515 dated 02.03.2010 and had no objection if the complaint is quashed in case the balance payment i.e. Rs.2,75,000 is paid to him. Now, in pursuance to the order dated 19.07.2010 passed by this Court, the petitioner has brought a bank draft (bearing No.134731 dated 07.08.2010) for the balance amount i.e. Rs.2,75,000/- in favour of the complainant which has been handed over to the complainant in Court today. Thus, the total agreed amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards the dishonoured cheque stands paid. A sum of Rs.3,25,000/- had been paid to complainant/respondent No. 1 vide Bank draft bearing No. 134515 dated 02.03.2010 and the balance amount i.e. Rs.2,75,000/- has been paid in court today vide Bank draft bearing No. 134731 dated 07.08.2010. Photo copy of the same has also been placed on record. Since the entire payment towards the dishonoured cheque has been made to the complainant, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the aforesaid complaint and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reproduced as under: “147. Offence to be compoundable.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, CRM M 2318 of 2010 3 1973 (2 of 1974), very offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.” Keeping in view the fact that the matter has been compromised and the settled amount towards the dishonoured cheque is duly made to the complainant, the parties are allowed to compound the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and complaint No. 3322T dated 16.09.2005 titled as Swatenter Raj Passy vs. Puneet Mudgal, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala (Annexure P2) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed. 09.08.2010 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) mohan JUDGE