Crl.Misc.No.M-6190 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-6190 of 2008 Date of Decision: 9 - 3 - 2009 M/s Frexton Cables (India) and another .....Petitioner v. M/s Swastik Industrial Power-lines Pvt. Ltd. .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.N.K.Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the respondent. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint, Annexure P-1 on the ground that a compromise had been effected between the parties before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. In the alternative, a prayer has been made that order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon whereby revision petition filed by the petitioners under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as withdrawn, be set aside. It has been stated in the petition that petitioners were dealing in the business of industrial cables and were having running business transactions with the respondent-complainant. It has been averred that due Crl.Misc.No.M-6190 of 2008 [2] to serious losses suffered by the petitioners, they failed to make payments to its creditors and, therefore, the petitioners had issued certain cheques in advance in lieu of the material supplied by the complainant-respondent. Resultantly, complaint Annexure P-1 was filed under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 IPC. Complaint has been annexed as Annexure P-1. It is stated that an effort was made before the Lok Adalat to effect compromise. The attempt of the Lok Adalat failed and no compromise was effected. Thereafter, complainant examined his witnesses and when the trial was almost on conclusion, an application Annexure P-4 was filed under Section 311Cr.P.C. for recalling PW-2 Ramesh Chand Goel. That application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 30.8.2005, Anneuxre P-3. Aggrieved against order dated 30.8.2005, petitioners had filed a revision petition before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon on 8.9.2005. Unilaterally revision petition was withdrawn on the ground that the matter was being compromised. A perusal of order, Annexure P-2 show that the opening lines “In view of the statement of revisionist identified by his counsel, the present revision petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, being compromised.” Whether compromise was effected or not, what was compromise, there is no document to this effect. However, counsel for the petitioners has made an attempt to say that this Court should draw an inference that impliedly there was a compromise. In para 9 of the petition, it has been stated as under:- “9. That after appearance of the respondent-complainant, fresh negotiations with regard to the compromise were initiated and the compromise was ultimately effected on the terms that Crl.Misc.No.M-6190 of 2008 [3] the petitioner-accused would pay Rs.25,97,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Lacs and Ninety Seven Thousands) to the respondent- complainant, in installments towards full and final settlement for withdrawing the complaints filed by the complainant- respondent. It was also agreed that in addition to the above amount a sum of Rs.25000/- to Rs.50,000/- as per capacity of the petitioners-accused would also be paid to the respondent- complainant on account of litigation expenses. The said verbal compromise was effected between the parties in the presence of counsel for both the parties.” Counsel for the petitioners has further stated that in pursuance of this compromise, payments were made to the respondent amounting to Rs.20 lacs, in three installments. Written statement has been filed by the respondent. The averments made in para 9 and 10 have been denied. It has been stated as under:- “9. That the contents of the contents of para no.9 of the petition are false, incorrect and hence denied. It is denied that the matter was settled and according to the terms the petitioner is liable to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.25,97,000/- towards full and final settlement. It is submitted that there is no compromise between the parties and the amount paid by the petitioner to the respondent is only towards the discharge of the part of the liability of the respondent towards the petitioner. It is vehemently denied that it was also agreed that in addition to the above agreed amount a sum of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/- would also be paid to the respondent on account of litigation Crl.Misc.No.M-6190 of 2008 [4] charges. It is submitted that when no settlement/compromise was entered between the petitioner and respondent then how the above amount was agreed upon, the petitioner is pleading false and concocted facts just to support his version. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has different versions in different courts to run away from his liability. It is denied that the alleged compromise was effected in the presence of the counsel for the parties. 10. That the contents of para no.10 of the petition are false, wrong and hence denied. It is denied that the payments were made as a sequel to the settlement. It is submitted that no settlement has been arrived between the parties and the payments were made by the petitioner in discharge of the part of the liability due by the petitioner to the respondent.” Whether any compromise was arrived at or not is a matter of evidence. On the averments made by both the parties, this Court cannot determine, whether parties had effected any compromise or not. There is no document to vouchsafe the compromise as urged in the present petition. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. Anything said herein should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) March 9, 2008. JUDGE RC