Criminal Misc. No. M-14409 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-14409 of 2008 Date of decision : 03.01.2011 Rakesh Dixit and another ....Petitioners V/s State of Haryana and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Shalini Atri, DAG Haryana. Mr. J.S. Chahal, Advocate for respondent No. 2/complainant. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint under Sections 420, 481, 482, 486, 487 & 488 IPC read with Sections 77,78,79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 (Annexure P-4), summoning order dated 25.09.2004 (Annexure P-5) and all consequential proceedings. Brief factual background of the case is that complaint, Annexure P-4 was instituted by respondent No. 2 alleging that the accused had supplied a defective weighing balance to the complainant by making a misrepresentation. Pursuant to the complaint, preliminary evidence was recorded by the trial court and petitioners were summoned to face trial for offence punishable under Sections 420/482/486/487/488 IPC read with Sections 77,78,79 of the Tade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The petitioners, however, preferred the instant petition before this court Criminal Misc. No. M-14409 of 2008 2 challenging the complaint, Annexure P-4 as well as summoning order, Annexure P-5. While issuing notice of motion on May 30, 2008, this court was pleased to stay further proceedings before the trial court. The matter, thereafter, remained pending before this court for arguments. On September 8, 2010, however, with the consent of parties the matter was referred to alternate dispute resolution for exploring the possibility of amicable settlement. The case came up before the Permanent Lok Adalat where it appears that due to efforts of learned Members and assistance of learned counsel, the parties were able to reach a compromise. Thus statements of respondent No. 2/complainant and Rakesh Dixit (petitioner No. 1) were recorded. The Lok Adalat thereafter passed the following order:- “Statements of Rakesh Dixit-petitioner No. 1 and Harish Kumar-respondent No. 2 have been recorded. As per settlement arrived at between the parties, the complainant has received a draft bearing No. 200876 dated 07.10.2010, amounting to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) drawn on ICICI Bank Limited 247, Yamuna Nagar, in the name of Harish Jeweller, from the petitioner towards full and final settlement of his claim. The other disputes between the parties with regard to weighing machine arising out of the consumer case has also been settled. Hence the case is returned to Hon’ble High Court for passing appropriate orders” Learned counsel appearing for the parties have submitted that in view of the amicable settlement of the entire dispute, further continuance of proceedings before the trial court will be an exercise in futility. They contend that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the complaint and summoning order as well as all consequential proceedings thereto deserve to be quashed. Reliance is placed on judgment of this court Criminal Misc. No. M-14409 of 2008 3 reported as Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR(Crl.), 1052. This court found this submission acceptable. The compromise is in the interest of parties and after the matter has been resolved, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings before the trial court to continue. Parties have settled the entire dispute by way of alternate dispute resolution. In view of law laid down by this court in Kulwinder Singh case (supra), the complaint, summoning order and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. The petitions is allowed in aforesaid terms. JANUARY 03, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE