Crl. Misc. No.M-13540 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-13540 of 2011 Date of decision. 09.05.2011 Harinder Singh Sethi ....... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. Gurinder Singh Brar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Mr.S.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent no.2. **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing criminal complaint No.23 dated 28.04.1999, titled as Som Dutt v. Harinder Singh Sethi and others, under Sections 420, 406, 465 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as also 120-B IPC(Annexure P-1) and the summoning order dated 07.11.2006( Annexure P-2), rendered by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Crl. Misc. No.M-13540 of 2011 --2-- Sabo, whereby the present petitioner was ordered to be summoned, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, has been filed by the petitioner. The allegation in the complaint is that on 25.08.1998 accused no.4 introduced respondent no.2 with the petitioner and his wife accused no.2 and they asked him to repair their furniture. It was assured that the payment of the prepared furniture will be made after obtaining loan from the bank. On deposit of bills alongwith quotations with the Bank, the petitioner has taken an amount of Rs.54,500/- in cash from the Bank by making forged signature of respondent no.2 and thereby he mis-appropriated the same. In the above background, a complaint was filed. The petitioner was summoned to face trial whereas the complaint against the other accused was dismissed. After recording the evidence of both the parties as well after going through the records, the trial Court vide order dated 07.11.2006 convicted the accused-petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Appeal filed by the present petitioner is pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda for 11.05.2011. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the matter has been compromised between the parties. As per the original settlement deed (Annexure A-1) and the affidavit of Som Dutt, complainant, filed in Court Crl. Misc. No.M-13540 of 2011 --3-- today, the complainant has no objection if the complaint and the consequential proceedings are quashed. Since both the parties have admitted the factum of compromise, so the same appears to be voluntarily and fair. Counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, he has no objection. In addition to that, he has further submitted that an appeal against the conviction is pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. After going through the compromise, arrived at between the parties and the contents of the affidavit, it transpires that the dispute in the present case was commercial in nature and all the dues have been cleared. Since the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 468 of IPC were non-compoundable, they have approached this Court seeking permission to compound the same. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the trial is likely to result into acquittal and continuous proceedings against the petitioner will be wastage of time. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puttaswamy Vs. State of Karnataka & Another 2009(1) RCR(Criminal) 501 wherein after conviction the parties had entered into compromise and granted permission to compound the offence. In view of the settled proposition of law and in view of the fact that the parties have compromised the matter, there is no impediment to grant permission to the parties to compound the offences. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. No.M-13540 of 2011 --4-- petitioner is allowed to compound the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 468 IPC. As such, the present petition is partly allowed and the petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda where the appeal is pending, who shall pass an appropriate order in the light of permission having granted by this Court to the parties to compound the offences. The Criminal Miscellaneous petition is partly allowed. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 09, 2011 dinesh