Criminal Misc.No.M-45770 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.No.M-45770 of 2007 Date of Decision:-2.9.2009 Ms.Kulwinder Kaur ...Petitioner Versus Amarjit Singh and State of Punjab ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr.Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Padam Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.2. L.N.Mittal, J. (Oral): Ms.Kulwinder Kaur has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “Cr.PC”) for quashing of criminal complaint No.57 dated 18.8.2004 (Annexure P1) filed by respondent No.1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant has alleged in the complaint that the petitioner owed a sum of Rs.6,21,600/- to the complainant and issued cheque dated 28.2.2006 for the said amount in discharge of said liability. The cheque when presented was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. In spite of demand notice, the petitioner failed to pay the amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the parties entered into compromise dated 1.8.2007 (Annexure P2). As per the said compromise, the petitioner, prior to the date of compromise , had paid a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- and then Rs.25,000/- and paid further amount of Rs.2 lacs on the date of compromise i.e. Criminal Misc.No.M-45770 of 2007 2 1.8.2007 to the complainant. The petitioner's father Amardeep Singh agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in three instalments of Rs.50,000/- each payable on 4.12.2007, 4.4.2008 and 4.8.2008 and on said payment, the complainant was to withdraw the complaint and the balance amount of Rs.21,600/- was waived off by the complainant. Admittedly, the terms of the aforesaid settlement have not been complied with by the petitioner, inasmuch as the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- agreed to be paid by the petitioner's father has not been paid to the complainant. In view thereof, no case for quashing of complaint is made out. In fact, the petitioner herself is dishonest as after entering into compromise and even without compliance of the terms thereof has approached this Court for quashing of the impugned complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the complainant in the complaint concealed the factum of payment of Rs.2,25,000/- and Rs.25,000/- which had already been paid by the petitioner before institution of the complaint. However, dates of payment of the said amount are not mentioned in the compromise (Annexure P2). In any event, even according to the petitioner's own version coupled with compromise, a sum of Rs.3,71,600/- remained to be paid by the petitioner to the complainant when the complaint was instituted. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the present petition, which is accordingly dismissed. 2.9.2009 (L.N.Mittal) AS Judge