Criminal Revision No. 344 of 1992 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 344 of 1992 Date of Decision: 31.01.2008. Arya Samaj Gohana Mandi, Sonepat. …Petitioner Versus Vijay Kumar and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Devinder Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manmohan Sikka, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.2- State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Respondent Vijay Kumar Katyal was named as accused in case FIR No. 386 dated 16.12.1988, registered at Police Station Gohana under Section 420 IPC. It is stated in the FIR that there was a compromise between respondent Vijay Kumar Katyal and complainant Arya Smaj Gohana. It is further stated that the accused had delivered two cheques in the amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.11,000/-, respectively, to Dr. Dharambir Singh. It is stated that when cheque of Rs.10,000/- was deposited it was dishonoured by the bank. For this, petitioner was Criminal Revision No. 344 of 1992 2 charge sheeted by the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana, for an offence under Section 420 IPC. Accused Vijay Kumar Katyal preferred a revision petition in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak. The revisional Court held as under:- “......In my opinion, the only inference that could be drawn from the said compromise was that all the three cases, two civil and one criminal, in respect of the property in dispute would be compromised in favour of accused-petitioner Vijay Kumar Katyal and he would get vacant possession of the same and in lieu thereof he had agreed to pay Rs.21,000/- to Arya Samat, Gohana Mandi”. It was further held by learned Sessions Judge that these cheques were drawn on the basis of compromise on the promise that same will fulfilled by Arya Samaj and the compromise on behalf of Arya Samaj could not be fulfilled. Learned Sessions Judge further observed as under:- “.....As referred to above, three cases were pending regarding the property in question i.e. two civil cases and one criminal case and out of these three cases only one civil case was got settled as compromised on 22.10.88, whereas the remaining two cases were still pending at the time when the two cheques were allegedly dishonoured and in this view of the matter, it could not be said that accused-petitioner Vijay Kumar Katyal had cheated Arya Samaj, Gohana Criminal Revision No. 344 of 1992 3 Mandi”. I find no infirmity in the order passed by learned Sessions Judge discharging the accused-respondent. Hence, the present revision petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge January 31, 2008 “DK”