CRM NO. M-6966 OF 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM NO. M-6966 OF 2010 (O&M) DECIDED ON : 18.10.2011 Des Raj ...Petitioner versus Sushil Saini ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N. C. Doabia, Advocate for Mr. B. S. Jaswal, Advocate, for the respondent. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) This Court on 09.08.2011 passed the following order :- “This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the order dated 16.1.2010 whereby the appeal of the petitioner dated 25.11.2008 titled as Des Raj vs. Sushil Saini was disposed of as dismissed as withdrawn on account of the reason that the petitioner had failed to appear due to inadvertence. The petitioner faced the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was convicted by the learned trial Court vide order dated 12.11.2008. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and was CRM NO. M-6966 OF 2010 (O&M) -2- directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred. The petitioner was granted the concession of bail and his sentence was suspended. During the subsistence of the appeal, the petitioner and the respondent settled the dispute inter- se between them and the petitioner agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as a measure of discharge of his liability. According to the arrangement, Rs.10,000/- was to be paid on 4.12.2009 and Rs.40,000/- on 16.1.2010, the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was to be paid by way of equated monthly instalments of Rs.5,000/- on every 15th day of the month. The compromise was recorded on 4.12.2009 as per the following terms:- Present: Appellant on bail with Sh.Rajat Anand Advocate Junior to Sh.Kuldeep Bawa Advocate. Respondent with Sh.Ramesh Mehra, Advocate The parties have effected compromise with the interference of the Court. Statements of the parties are recorded. Rs.10,000/- paid to the respondent by appellant. To come up on 16.1.2010 for payment of next instalment of Rs.40,000/-. Sd/- (Karnail Singh) Addl. S.J. Asr. 4.12.09” The petitioner submitted himself to the compromise and paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- in the Court on 4.12.2009. Thereafter he defaulted and did not pay the amount of Rs.40,000/- even though the case of the petitioner is that the said amount of Rs.40,000/- was got prepared by way of demand draft CRM NO. M-6966 OF 2010 (O&M) -3- but due to inadvertence he could not put in appearance resulting in the passing of the impugned order. The appeal of the petitioner thus stood dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner in the meantime preferred a contempt petition bearing No.1 428 of 2010 by pleading that since the proceedings had been stayed in CRM No. M-6966 of 2010 on 9.3.2010, the respondents who had forcibly taken him to the Police Station, be proceeded against for having committed contempt of Court. In the third Crl. Misc. Petition preferred by the petitioner bearing No. M- 21519 of 2010 prayer for taking action be initiated against respondents no.1 to 3 as also respondents no.4,5,6 and 7 pursuant to the complaint that he has initiated against them as also against respondents no.4 to 8 as all these respondents are harassing him. The allegations set out in the petition also proceed from the alleged violation of the interim order of this Court. It is to be noticed that on 9.3.2010, this Court had merely stayed the operation of the impugned order and if the effect of this order is to be seen, then it would mean that firstly the appeal and the second compromise would still sustain and remain alive. The petitioner has not taken a single step to honour the compromise which he had effected before the Appellate Court but has rather chosen to file these petitions in order to stop the execution of said compromise. No amount pursuant to the said compromise except the amount of Rs.10,000/- which was paid in the first instance has been paid to the respondent. Prima facie, this Court is convinced that the petitioner has indulged in dilatory tactics in order to frustrate the claim of the respondent and to derive CRM NO. M-6966 OF 2010 (O&M) -4- undue advantage to himself. He has already been awarded conviction but the same was kept in abeyance and the appeal was not decided on merits because of the compromise. But since the petitioner has chosen to defy this compromise as well, he has not only defeated the process of law but has also frustrated the attempt of the respondent to have his legitimate dues. The petitioner has also burdened this Court with unnecessary litigation. The petition infact deserves to be dismissed with costs for lack of bona fide of the petitioner. However, keeping in view the interest of justice, one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to satisfy the entire claim of the respondent within a period of two months from today failing which appropriate orders will be passed in this context. Adjourned to 18.10.2011”. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the drafts bearing No. 106740 dated 10.10.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- and No.106749 dated 14.10.2011 for Rs.35,000/-. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated at the bar that he is ready for the compromise, if the said amount is paid. The said amount be paid to the respondent. The above mentioned drafts be handed over to learned counsel for the respondent. In view of the above, the order dated 16.10.2010 stands set-aside and the accused stands acquitted, on the basis of compromise. However, the petitioner shall deposit Rs.5000/- as costs before the District Legal Service Authority, Amritsar within 15 days from today. CRM NO. M-6966 OF 2010 (O&M) -5- Disposed of. OCTOBER 18, 2011 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE