Crl. M. No. M 5329 of 2010 and others 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 05.10.2010 1. Crl. M. No. M 5329 of 2010 M/s Mass Marketing Corporation and another .... Petitioners Versus Arun Jain .... Respondent 2. Crl. M. No. M 6400 of 2010 M/s Mass Marketing Corporation and another .... Petitioners Versus Arun Jain .... Respondent 3. Crl. M. No. M 4899 of 2010 M/s Mass Marketing Corporation and another .... Petitioners Versus Arun Jain .... Respondent 4. Crl. M. No. M 5441 of 2010 M/s Mass Marketing Corporation and another .... Petitioners Versus Arun Jain .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the respondent -.- 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. This order shall dispose of all the aforementioned petitions as Crl. M. No. M 5329 of 2010 and others 2 in these petitions, the litigation is between the same parties. The aforementioned petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the following complaints filed by the respondent under Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties:- Sr. No. Complai nt No. Title Under Section Pending in the Court 1 268 Arun Jain v. M/s Mass marketing Corp and another 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under Section 420 IPC In the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon 2 269 -ditto- -ditto- -ditto 3 270 -ditto- -ditto- -ditto- 4 271 -ditto- -ditto- -ditto- That it may not be out of place to mention here that in all there were 9 complaints filed against the present petitioners by the complainant/respondent. During the course of proceedings, the matter was compromised between the parties. As per the compromise which took place on 28.05.2009, out of total outstanding of ` 46,64,474/-, a sum of ` 5 lacs was paid in the Court on that very day and another sum of ` 20 lacs on 25.07.2009, four more complaints were to be withdrawn by the complainant. The remaining amount of `21,64,474/- was to be paid on 23.09.2009 on which date the remaining four cases were also to be withdrawn by the respondent after receiving the said payment. On 26.09.2009, the petitioners paid another amount of `2.00 lacs and sought two months time for payment of the remaining amount as they could not arrange the full amount. Thereafter, the balance amount was not accepted on the ground that the petitioner was not ready and willing to pay the Crl. M. No. M 5329 of 2010 and others 3 interest. The said compromise had no mention of the interest. Hence, the present petition was filed. On 23.09.2010, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant had made a statement before this Court that the respondent has no objection and shall withdraw the complaints, in case, the petitioners make the balance payment along with interest at the rate of 8% from 23.09.2009 till the date of its realisation. Today, the petitioners have made the entire balance payment to the complainant in Court today in the form of bank drafts which has been duly accepted by the complainant. Details of the bank drafts are as under:- Sr. No. Demand draft No. Issued by Amount 1 635798 Corporation Bank, Bangalore M G Road `4,20,000/- 2 201169 ICICI Bank, Sector 15, Gurgaon `4,95,000/- 3 ICICI, Connaught Place II `7,85,000/- 4 635772 Corporation bank Bangalore MG Road `1,00,000/- 5 466603 UCO Bank, service Branch, New Delhi `49,700/- 6 99725 Central Bank of India, Gurdwara Road, Gurgoan `49,000/- 7 101965 ICICI Bank, Sector 15, Gurgaon `16,300/- 8 101964 -do- `49,500/- 9 201867 -do- `1,52,062/- To that effect, the complainant has also got recorded his statement separately in Court today stating therein that the matter stands settled amicably. As per settlement, he has received the balance principle amount i.e. `19,64,500/- along with interest amounting to `1,62,000/- in the form of bank drafts and `10,000/- as cash in Court today towards the dishonoured cheques from the petitioners. The matter has been settled Crl. M. No. M 5329 of 2010 and others 4 finally and the complainant has no objection if the aforesaid complaints and subsequent proceedings arising thereof against the present petitioners are quashed. After receiving the bank drafts, learned counsel for the complainant has pointed out that the validity date of some of the drafts had expired. Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the same stand revalidated and further undertook that it will be the responsibility of the petitioners to see that the respondent-complainant do not face any problem and the aforesaid re-validated draft are encashed. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another-2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has observed as under:- “The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduced friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the court exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.” The Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:- “6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should Crl. M. No. M 5329 of 2010 and others 5 ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” In the present case, the matter has been settled amicably. The complainant has accepted the balance principle amount along with interest accrued thereon in the court itself and also suffered a statement that he has no objection if the aforesaid complaints filed under Sections 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code are quashed. Taking into account that the entire amount towards dishonoured cheques stands paid and the matter is finally compromised as well as the statement of the complainant, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the aforesaid complaints in view of the above said settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the above mentioned petitions are allowed and consequently the aforesaid complaints and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. Photocopy of the order be also placed on other connected files. 05.10.2010 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) mohan JUDGE