IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-25097 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: August 19, 2011 Davinder Singh Sethi …..Petitioner versus Rakesh Jain .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate with Mr.G.P. Vashisht, Advocate for the petitioner .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: Petitioner seeks quashing of criminal complaint No.76 dated 16.3.2009 under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with section 420 IPC instituted by respondent-complainant before the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that parties had arrived at an amicable settlement and agreed to put an end to litigation on 5.4.2011. It was decided that petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.18 lacs to the complainant in four equal quarterly instalments. Accordingly, a statement was also made before the court. The statement was, however, made under the impression that an FIR registered against the petitioner at the behest of the complainant under section 420 IPC would also be quashed. However, the complainant backed out and thus, trial is proceeding. Learned counsel has further submitted Crl.Misc.No.M-25097 of 2011 - 2 - that thereafter an application was moved by the petitioner praying that statements of the parties be recorded again which was, however, turned down vide order dated 18.7.2011 (Annexure P-14). According to learned counsel, in view of compromise arrived at between the parties all proceedings deserves to be quashed. Besides the court should have allowed the parties to “re-record” their statements. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident that a complaint was instituted by complainant on the allegation that certain cheques issued by the petitioner had been dishonoured. The petitioner was summoned to face trial vide summoning order dated 12.6.2009 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner claims that a compromise was arrived at during the pendency of trial and statements of the parties were recorded on 5.4.2011. He has referred to Annexures P-8 and P-9 in this regard. According to him, there was another case i.e. an FIR registered at the behest of complainant under section 420 IPC which was also to be quashed in terms of the compromise. As the complainant backed out, an application was moved for “re-recording” statements of the parties. On query being put to learned counsel about the provision of law under which said application was moved, no clear answer is forthcoming. A perusal of order (Annexure P-14), however, shows that the Magistrate rejected the application moved by the petitioner on the ground that he had failed to make payment of first instalment on 5.5.2011 as per terms of the compromise. The Magistrate also observed that case under section 420 IPC 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25097 of 2011 - 3 - had no concern with the instant complaint under section 138 of the Act. Thus application was misconceived. He also took notice of another application moved by the accused seeking to withdraw the statement in support of compromise and dismissed the application. I find no ground to interfere in the said order. No other ground for quashing of complaint/summoning order and other consequential proceedings has been agitated. The petition is thus, without any merit and is hereby dismissed. August 19, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 3