IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO. No. 12 of 2010. Date of Decision: 22.7.2010. _______________________________________________ Shyam Lal Chauhan. ….Petitioner. Versus. Ranjit Singh. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?.No. For the petitioner : Mr.Rupinder Singh Advocate. For Respondent. : Mr. R.K.Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. . Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). This petition has been filed by petitioner-Shyam Lal Chauhan for quashing the order dated 15.10.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmour District at Nahan summoning the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner alleged that a complaint is filed basically to grab money from the petitioner. It is pleaded that the respondent is a very influential person and mis-led the facts before the learned trial Court. For the important averments made in the petition is that: “It is pertinent to mention here that when the proceedings are pending before the trial Magistrate, a compromise was entered into inter se between the parties in which the respondent- Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes. 2 complainant unambiguously stated that parties to that complaint amicably settled the dispute between them. It has also been admitted that both complainant and respondent are relative and to have good relations with each the matter would be settled amicably. The Photostat copy of the said compromise deed dated 6th April, 2005 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-1 for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. In view of this compromise the complaint set out against the petitioner is totally manipulated and is not tenable but the learned Magistrate below only on false preliminary evidence adduced by the complainant has summoned the present petitioner by way of impugned order for 20.11.2009 when he was present and thereafter has been summoned for 15.1.2010 and as such the order is totally illegal, unjust and against the well settled position of law.” I am not entering into this controversy any further. However, All I need to say that if the matter has been compromised; continuation of the criminal proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. It will be open to the petitioner herein to approach the learned trial Court to demonstrate that the subject matter of the so called complaint has already been compromised and that the continuation of the proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court. The trial Court shall then proceed with the case in accordance with law. This petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. July 22, 2010(R)