IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M –3554 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.11.2010 Pawan Kumar Goyal @ Parveen Kumar Goel …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and anr … Respondents Present: Mr Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr KC Gupta, Sr DAG Haryana. Mr Anil Malik, Advocate for the complainant. S.S.SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR 818 dated 24.11.2009 registered at PS Chandni Bagh, District Panipat, for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Sandeep Kumar (respondent-2). It has been alleged by the complainant- respondent-2 that after dissolution of the partnership firm – M/s Shri Balaji Textiles, the petitioner owed a sum of Rs 14,02,770/- to him, for which he issued eight cheques of different dates. Four of the cheques were not honoured. It has been alleged that the petitioner entered into a partnership with the complainant under a fake name and as such, he committed a fraud with him. The complainant alleges that the petitioner was known to him for the last two years and he used to regularly visit his house. A month earlier to the execution of the partnership deed between them, the petitioner Cr Misc M-3554 of 2010 2 represented that he was unemployed and wanted to do cloth business. He stated that there was profit in the business and both of them would execute a partnership deed and terms should be clear in the joint venture. The complainant was taken by his talks and agreed to the proposal. Accordingly, the petitioner got a partnership deed prepared and came to the house of the complainant for getting it signed, which the complainant signed on 24.2.2009. In the cloth business, the share of the complainant was 40% and that of the petitioner 60%. The name of the firm was Shri Balaji Textiles. On 23.5.2009, their partnership came to an end with the consent of both the parties. In this regard, the petitioner gave a writing that he had to pay Rs 14,02,770/- to the complainant. For the said amount, the petitioner issued eight cheques which were drawn on the Central Bank of India, Rohini Brach, New Delhi. The termination of the partnership was signed by the complainant. Besides, it was signed by the petitioner, his real uncle’s son namely Sh Rajesh Goel as also by Manjit Singh. Out of the eight cheques that were given, four were not honoured. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. The complainant along with the Process Server went to the house of the brother-in-law (Jija) of the petitioner for getting the service effected. At that time, the complainant came to know that the petitioner had obtained a loan from the Central Cooperative Bank. In this regard, a FIR was also registered against him at PS State Vigilance Bureau (H) Rohtak, which was pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. The petitioner had committed fraud under the name of Pawan Kumar son of Banarsi Dass. In this regard, his real brother – Harish Kumar is also involved. The petitioner had committed fraud with the complainant also by representing himself to be son of Ghasi Ram and Cr Misc M-3554 of 2010 3 stating his name as Parveen Kumar Goel whereas his real name is Pawan Kumar Goel son of Banarsi Dass. In this regard, a photocopy of the Matriculation Certificate, partnership deed given by him to the Central Cooperative Bank, Sonepat, photocopy of the bail application, a copy of FIR 28/2001 and other documents were submitted wherein the petitioner’s name is mentioned as Pawan Kumar Goel son of Banarsi Dass. However, when the petitioner entered into partnership of cloth business, he has given his name as Parveen Kumar Goel son of Ghasi Ram. The complainant also came to know that he has been misled and obtained a loan from 5-6 banks of Delhi. In the present case, during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner has returned the amount that is payable to the complainant. On 10.3.2010, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs 5,52,500/-; on 21.5.2010 a sum of Rs 4.00 lakhs; thereafter on 24.8.2010, a sum of Rs 2.00 lakhs was paid; on 1.11.2010, he paid Rs 2,50,270/-. In this manner, he has paid the entire amount. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent-2 has submitted that the complainant has no objection to the quashing of the FIR as his amount has been paid. Besides, it is submitted that the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are compoundable. Even otherwise, it is submitted that in respect of the partnership dispute, the FIR is liable to be quashed on the basis of compromise. According to learned counsel for the State, it is submitted that the petitioner has impersonated himself and had cheated the complainant by giving forged documents and had taken an amount of Rs 14,02,770/-. Besides, he has given his wrong name and father’s name, Cr Misc M-3554 of 2010 4 After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the amount that was due to the complainant has been paid and the complainant is satisfied. The cheating that has been done is primarily with the complainant and both had enjoyed some relationship at one time. The dispute primarily is civil in nature and as regards the impersonation which has been done, it is qua the complainant. Insofar as the offences with the Bank are concerned, the petitioner would be tried in accordance with law. However, keeping in view the fact that the amount of the complainant has been returned, it would be just and expedient to terminate the proceedings by quashing the FIR. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows: “We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” A larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Cr.) 1052 (5 Judges) has observed as follows: “27. The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be Cr Misc M-3554 of 2010 5 diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320 (9) of the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 28. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behavior. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is `finest hour of justice'. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.” The challan in the case has not been filed and the petitioner, it is stated by the learned counsel for the State on instructions from SI Ishwar Singh of PS Chandni Bagh, Panipat, has, however, joined the investigation and his further custody is not required for the purposes of investigation. Cr Misc M-3554 of 2010 6 Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR 818 dated 24.11.2009 registered for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at PS Chandni Bagh, Panipat, shall stand quashed. 15.11.2010 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge