Crl. Misc. No. M-20007 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-20007 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : November 18, 2009 Manish Madan .... Petitioner Vs. Vasdev .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Seema Pasricha, Advocate for the respondent. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Crl. Misc. No. 58615 of 2009 : Application is allowed and reply on behalf of the respondent, filed today in Court, is taken on record. Main Case : Manish Madan has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for quashing of order dated 13.10.2007 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 16.04.2009 (Annexure P-7) arising out of the Award of Lok Adalat. The petitioner had filed criminal complaint (Annexure P-1) against respondent Vasdev under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Crl. Misc. No. M-20007 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Instruments Act, 1881. When the complaint was at the final stage, respondent made statement (Annexure P-3) dated 13.10.2007 in Lok Adalat agreeing to pay Rs.76,500/- against cheque amount of Rs.90,000/-. The respondent paid Rs.3,000/- at the time of making the aforesaid statement and agreed to pay Rs.20,000/- on 22.10.2007 and the remaining amount in monthly instalments of Rs.3,000/- each commencing from 10.11.2007. In view of said statement made by the respondent regarding compromise effected in Lok Adalat, the petitioner got the complaint dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 13.10.2007 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, which has been assailed in the instant petition. The petitioner also filed execution petition (Annexure P-5) for recovery of the balance amount as per compromise, but by making statement (Annexure P-6) on 16.04.2009, the said execution petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.04.2009 (Annexure P-7). The petitioner stated that he would initiate proceedings for revival of the complaint and for action against the respondent. Accordingly, the instant petition has been filed for revival of complaint by setting aside order dated 13.10.2007 (Annexure P-4) and also by setting aside order dated 16.04.2009 (Annexure P-9). In reply, respondent has pleaded that by way of compromise, he had agreed to pay Rs.3,000/- only and signed the statement in the Court, but he was not aware that he had to make any further payment because he had not borrowed any amount from the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The plea of the respondent that he was to make payment of Rs.3,000/- only, which he paid on 13.10.2007 at the time of making statement and that he was not to make any further payment, cannot be accepted. There is categorical statement (Annexure P-3) made by the respondent undertaking to pay a total sum of Rs.76,500/-. The said Crl. Misc. No. M-20007 of 2009 (O&M) 3 statement was recorded in Hindi and had been signed by the respondent in English. Consequently, the plea of respondent that he was not aware of his liability to make further payment being illiterate, cannot be accepted. The said statement has also been counter-signed by counsel for the respondent in the lower court. On the basis of said statement, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn. However, the respondent has turned dishonest and has not complied with his statement (Annexure P-3) made in the trial court. The respondent has thus committed fraud with the Court. This Court, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can pass appropriate order to serve the ends of justice and to undo the fraud committed by the respondent. Purity of the system of administration of justice has to be maintained and it is the duty of this Court to do so by passing appropriate order. The respondent has polluted the stream of administration of justice by making statement on oath before the trial court regarding compromise and then by not complying with the terms thereof, although the respondent secured withdrawal of the complaint on the basis of statement made by him regarding compromise. The respondent is estopped from challenging said statement having taken advantage thereof. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and order dated 13.10.2007 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal is set aside and criminal complaint (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner against the respondent is restored to the files of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal for proceeding therewith in accordance with law from the stage at which it was pending before passing of the impugned order dated 13.10.2007 (Annexure P-4). The parties are directed to appear before trial Magistrate on 21.12.2009. November 18, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE