IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No.38498 M OF 2007 Date of Decision: May 20, 2008 RAJESH KUMAR PRASHAR .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vivek K.Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL J Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record, Annexure P2, P3 and P6 in the form of receipt, clearance letter and the affidavit of the complainant showing that he had already received the entire money from the petitioner and no amount was due from him. It was further stated in the affidavit that he has no objection for quashing of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881(for short 'the Act'). In spite of service respondent No.2 complainant has not put in appearance. The allegations made by the petitioner supported by the document annexed in the petition duly signed by the respondent No.2 complainant remain controverted. It is evident from document Annexure P6 that compromise had been effected between the parties on 23.02.2004 in terms of which a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was received and a balance of Rs.1,75,000/- was received when the document was signed by respondent No.2 the same was full and final settlement of the amount due against the petitioner for the loan raised by him for bus No. HP19-7535. Criminal Misc.No.38498 M OF 2007 -2- It was agreed upon by the respondent No.2 that the company shall be bound to withdraw all the cases (both civil and criminal) including arbitration against the petitioner which are pending in different courts at Hoshiarpur. Document at Annexure P3 is letter written by respondent No.2 to the registering authority stating therein that the loan amount against the vehicle had been cleared and the entry of Hire Purchase can be deleted. At Annexure P6 is affidavit by Captain Lakhwinder Singh, Managing Director of the respondent No.2 admitting the factum of compromise and stating no objection to quashing of complaint. As the service of respondent No.2 is complete and he has not put in appearance to deny the facts stated in the petition, the same are deemed to be admitted relying thereupon I find merits in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 under the Act deserves to be quashed as the entire loan amount has already been cleared. Accordingly the complaint No. 184 dated 18.09.1999 filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner and all subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed. However, the same is subject to the conditions that in case the facts stated by the petitioner are found to be incorrect, the respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to get the same revived. The petition is disposed of. May 20, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) Ruchika JUDGE