IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRIMINAL MISC.NO.3827 M OF 2007 DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 18, 2007 Sanjivani Parental Limited and others .....Petitioners VERSUS Nactar Life Science Limited and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. G. S. Punia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. C. L. Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Through this order, three Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos.3827, 3829 and 9990 M of 2007 (Sanjivani Parental Limited and others Vs. Nectar Life Sciences Limited and another) are being disposed of together as common question of law arises in these petitions. This is a case where the petitioners and the respondent-Company are stated to be well acquainted with each other. The facts in Criminal Misc. No.3827 M of 2007 show that on an offer made by respondent No.1-Company, Criminal Misc. No.3827 M of 2007 :{ 2 }: the petitioners purchased raw stock amounting to Rs.23,61,296/- through various invoices. To discharge this liability, three cheques bearing Nos.982785 dated 30.11.2004 for a sum of Rs.17,09,904/-, 982900 dated 2.12.2004 amounting to Rs.3,25,696/- and 968469 dated 5.2.2005 amounting to Rs.3,25,696/-, totalling to Rs.23,61,296/- were issued. These cheques were dishonoured by the banker, namely, The Thane Janata Shahakari Bank Ltd., Khopat, Thane through memos dated 25.5.2005 and 28.5.2005 with the remarks reading “Refer to Drawer”. Aggrieved against the same, complainant Company sent demand notice dated 16.6.2005, asking the petitioners to make the payment mentioned in three different cheques. Thereafter, respondent No.1-Company filed a complaint on 21.7.2005 against the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). When the petitioners received summons, they put in appearance before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh. Claiming that there was no proper service of the demand notice, the petitioner- Company prayed for time to make payment within six months. Accordingly, the Company issued three cheques bearing Nos.148229, 148228 and 148258, out of which two were amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- whereas the third one was for Rs.13,61,296/-. All these three cheques have been debited on 16.2.2006, 18.2.2006 and 1.3.2006 respectively. Thus, a total amount of Rs.23,61,296/- has been credited to the account of the respondent-Company. It is also plseaded that the petitioners have amicably settled the matter with the respondent-Company, yet the Magistrate issued bailable warrants against the petitioners and accordingly the present petitions Criminal Misc. No.3827 M of 2007 :{ 3 }: are filed, seeking quashing of the complaint, summoning order and subsequent proceedings. Similar is the factual position in the remaining two Miscellaneous Petition Nos.3829 M of 2007 and 9990 M of 2007, where the amounts due to the tune of Rs.17,08,600 and Rs.6,00,000/- respectively are paid by the petitioner-Company besides settling the matter with the respondent-Company by discharging the complete liability. Notice of motion was issued to the respondents and arrest of the petitioners was stayed subject to signatory of the cheque-petitioner No.3 in Criminal Misc. Nos.3827 and 3829 M of 2007 and petitioner No.5 in Criminal Misc. No.9990 M of 2007, putting in appearance before the trial Court. Other petitioners were, however, permitted to appear through counsel. When the case came up for hearing before the Court on 18.4.2007, Mr.C.L.Goyal, counsel appearing for respondent- Company, made a statement that he does not wish to file any written statement and is prepared to argue the matter as it is. Despite having been apprised that this may lead to an inference that the factual position mentioned in the petition is not being contested, the counsel still expressed his desire to continue with the arguments and accordingly, the petitions were heard and are being decided. Mr.G.S.Punia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the three petitions, has placed on record a chart indicating amount due case-wise and payment made to discharge the liability. As per this detail, the total amount due towards the petitioners and their Company works out to Rs.59,19,467/- and the Criminal Misc. No.3827 M of 2007 :{ 4 }: same has been cleared through D.Ds./cheques dated 15.2.2006, 17.2.2006, 28.2.2006, 15.3.2006, 20.3.2006 and 25.3.2006. These have been cleared and credited to the account of the respondent- Company on 16.2.2006, 18.2.2006, 1.3.2006, 17.3.2006, 21.3.2006 and 27.3.2006 respectively. Thus, the total liability standing against the petitioners has been discharged. This position is not contested by the respondents. It has also been averred in the petition that in June 2005, there was an understanding/settlement between the petitioners and complainant-Company to the effect that all payments will be made in due course and the complainant would not pursue the remedy under Section 138 of the Act. It is further averred that though the total amount due, as per the cheques issued, was Rs.74,02,547/- but, as per the settlement, goods worth Rs.14,83,080/- were sent through Safe Express Private Limited to the complainant-Company, which were accepted and as such, the balance amount due towards the petitioner-Company worked out to be 53,19,467/-. Since, no reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Company, the facts, as pleaded in the petition, would stand admitted as the same have not been denied in any manner. In fact, the counsel appearing for the respondent-Company did not deny the fact of receipt of this amount or the settlement reached between the parties. Since, no reply is filed, the facts pleaded would be deemed to be admitted. Since the matter has admittedly been settled, which is duly honoured by the petitioners and the fact of settlement having not been denied, no useful purpose will be served in allowing these proceedings to continue. It may need a notice that petitioner-Company has also pleaded that they were not properly served and the moment they Criminal Misc. No.3827 M of 2007 :{ 5 }: came to know of dishonouring of the cheques, they proceeded to settle the issue and discharge the liability. The present petitions are accordingly allowed. The complaint, summoning order and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are ordered to be quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. April 18, 2007 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE