1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( Cr.P.C .) 1973, seeks following reliefs :

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/11984/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined

(c) To direct the respondent No.2 to bear the cost of the proceedings that have been required to be instituted on account of the malice of the respondent No.2;

(d) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay all further proceedings of Criminal Case No.89623 of 2019 pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act) Court No.37, Ahmedabad qua the petitioners herein;

(e) Pending admission, hearing and disposal of the present petition, be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to withdraw the Criminal Case No.COMPL/129(C) of 2018 pending before the learned Magistrate Court, at Bhojpur, Bihar;

(f) To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper to this Hon'ble Court.

2. Brief facts are as under :

According to the petitioner following the compromise arrived between the parties the sale deed of chunk of land was executed in the favour of Hitesh Ishwarlal Thakkar. Yet the complainant did not follow other conditions of compromise to withdraw the criminal complaint, hence, this petition is also filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming relief to enforce the complainant to withdraw the complaint.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Narendra Jain for learned advocate Mr. Hetvi Sancheti for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Aditya Gupta for respondent No.2 complainant and learned APP Mr. Chintan Dave for the respondent State and have perused the record.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Jain appearing for petitioner made two fold submissions firstly referring to the Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:26:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/11984/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined judgment in the case of A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2015) 12 SCC 203, submitted that the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I Act has been filed through, power of attorney. However, in the body of the complaint it is not specifically stated that the power of attorney holder has personal knowledge of the transaction impugned in the complaint. He would submit that since the essential ingredients of filing of the complaint by power of attorney on behalf of the petitioner is missing, the complaint filed by the power of attorney holder is not maintainable.

4.1 Secondly, learned advocate Mr. Jain submitted that tripartite compromise arrived at between the parties (Annexure B) is clear as crystal. The petitioner was under obligation to execute the sale deed for some chunk of land in favour of confirming party Hiteshbhai Ishwarlal Thakkar. He would further submit that according to the agreement/settlement arrived between the parties, once the sale deed is executed for chunk of land in favour of confirming party Hiteshbhai Thakkar, the complainant was required to withdraw the proceeding under the N.I Act . However, the complainant turned away from his promise made in the compromise and settlement, despite the sale deed for the chunk of land having executed in favour of the Hiteshbhai I. Thakkar.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/11984/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Therefore, he submitted that this Court may exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and enforce the compromise arrived at between the parties and compel the complainant to withdraw the proceedings. Alternatively, it is argued that whereby the petitioner discharging his obligation by specifically performing his part slated in compromise in regard to the dispute since the compromise has been arrived at between the parties whereby the petitioner discharging his obligation by specifically performing his part slated in compromise in regard to the dispute raised in the criminal complaint, the Court may close the proceedings of the complaint.

5. It was further argued by learned advocate Mr. Jain that the petition has filed in the year 2021 with specific averments about the compromise between the parties, however, it has not been denied by the respondent by filing any reply on the affidavit thus, it will amount to acceptance of the plea that the parties have settled the despite through compromise amongst them outside the Court, pursuant to which the petitioners have performed their part of the compromise by executing sale deed for chunk of land. Hereafter, the complainant being a part of the compromise/settlement was required to act upon his part of the compromise deed and to withdraw the criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:26:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/11984/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Act, but as he failed to perform his part of compromise, this Court, alternatively, may exercise the power and quash the complaint impugned.

5.1 In the premise of the aforesaid argument, learned advocate Mr.Jain submitted to allow this petition and to grant relief prayed in the petition.

6. Per contra learned advocate Mr. Aditya Gupta appearing for the private respondent-complainant vehemently argued that POA has filed affidavit during the inquiry proceeding where it is specifically stated that the power of attorney holder has personal knowledge of the transaction between the complainant and the accused being the subject matter of the complaint. He referred to page 30 of the compilation to buttress his submission. Learned advocate Mr. Aditya Gupta further submits that whether the power of attorney holder has personal knowledge with regard to the transaction between the parties, is the subject matter of trial and can be established during the trial however, it cannot be the basis to quash the complaint.

6.1 Learned advocate Mr. Gupta further argued that the settlement and compromise admittedly was arrived between the parties but it was not actuated as per the terms and conditions. He would submit that according to the settlement and compromise arrived between the parties, for some chunk of land, sale deed was required to be executed Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:26:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/11984/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined in favour of the nominee of the complainant. The title of the land was required to be made clear and the purchaser was required to put in the possession of the chunk of the land. Learned advocate Mr. Gupta submitted that though the sale deed was executed in favour of the nominee of the complainant for some chunk of land the title of it has not been made clear nor the nominee has been put into possession. Therefore, Mr. Gupta learned advocate has submitted that since the petitioner had failed to cohere to the terms and conditions of the settlement and compromise, rather fall out the petitioner cannot say that pursuant to arriving at settlement and compromise, rather fall out the complainant should withdraw the complaint and alternatively, the complaint be quashed. He would submit that whether the terms and conditions of the settlement and compromise is acted upon or not is also subject matter of the trial and can be established during the trial. It cannot be a basis to quash the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I Act.

6.2 Upon above submissions learned advocate Mr. Gupta submit to dismiss this petition.

7. Learned APP considering the aspect that the dispute is private between the complainant and the accused submit to pass necessary order.

8. Regard being made to the rival submissions by learned advocates for both the sides and considering the record of Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:26:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/11984/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined case the first contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Jain, placing reliance upon the case of A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), that complainant filed through POA, since lacks necessary averments of POA has personal knowledge of transaction. The copy of the complaint is placed on record at (Annexure A). The body of the complaint specifically states that Nileshkumar Dilipbhai Kotak has filed the complaint in capacity of the power of attorney holder of Riteshbhai Dilipbhai Kotak. The criminal complaint was registered as Criminal Inquiry No. 100 of 2018. The complainant has filed affidavit in support of his complaint at page 30. In this affidavit, the power of attorney holder has specifically stated on oath that he has personal knowledge of transaction that took place with accused. He has been authorised by the principal to prosecute the accused and also produced the copy of the power of attorney along with the affidavit.

9 In Naresh Potteries Vs Aarti Industries reported in AIR 2025 SC, 886 held that if person filing complaint under Section 138 of the N.I Act other than payee and accused raised dispute of not having personal knowledge, same can be decided during trial. Relevant para is extracted as under :

This Court further claried that if there is any dispute with regard to the person prosecuting the complaint not being authorised or it is to be demonstrated that the complainant had no knowledge of the transaction, and as such could not have instituted and prosecuted the complaint, it would be open for the accused person to dispute the position and establish the same during the course of the trial. However, dismissal or quashing of the complaint at the threshold would not be justied. It was held that the issue of proper authorisation and knowledge can only be an issue for trial.

10. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is incorrect to say that the private complaint is lacking the essential averments with regard to the power of attorney having Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:26:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/11984/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined personal knowledge. The body of the complaint specifically states that it has been filed by the power of attorney holder. In the affidavit filed along with the private complaint annexed with the complaint shows that the power of attorney holder has personal knowledge with regard to the transaction mentioned in the complaint. Even otherwise such contention are not the reason to quash the complaint at the threshhold. In view of the aforesaid finding the first submission of learned advocate Mr. Jain failed to sustain. As far as second submission with regard to settlement and compromise arrived at between the parties pursuant to which the complainant was required to withdraw the complaint and this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce the compromise arrived at between the parties and quash the complaint, it is apt to observe that Court under the jurisdiction of Section 482 of the CRPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot enforce any party to perform his part of the compromise settlement. The party seeking relief of specific performance on the part of the contract is required to approach the Civil Court concerned.

11. Learned advocate Mr. Gupta referred to para 4 a and 4 b of the compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties and would submit that the compromise was also a conditional one. The complaint was not only required to execute the sale deed for chunk of land in favour of Hitesh Ishwarbhai Thakkar but was also required to clear the title of the chunk of land and was required to put the Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:26:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/11984/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined complainant or his nominee into the possession of the land. Learned advocate Mr. Gupta submit that though the sale deed was executed the residuary part of clearing the title and putting Hitesh Thakkar into the possession of the chunk of land has not been complied with by the petitioner. He would submit that since the compromise settlement is only partially held fast , the complainant has not withdrawn the criminal proceedings filed against the petitioner.

12. This Court in the aforesaid factual aspects is of the opinion that whether the compromise or settlement arrived at between the parties or actuated in its terms and conditions and whether pursuant to which the complainant was required to withdraw the complaint can be determined in the trial. They are disputed questions of facts and cannot be gone at this stage of quashing complaint. This Court either under Section 482 of the CPRC or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot enfore the party or to adhere to the settlement of the compromise made between them outside the Court. This Court cannot hold a mini-trial at the time of quashing of complaint and to determine the issue whether compromise/settlement has been arrived at between the parties? Whether it is acted upon or not? Whether it is conditional and whether its conditions are fulfilled? All these questions are questions to be raised and decided during trial and they cannot be agitated and argued in quashing the proceeding.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/11984/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined

13. In another decision in the case of Dharambeer kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand 2025(1) SCC 392, the Apex Court held that the Court cannot conduct mini trial at this juncture to appreciate the rival submissions made by the petitioner which could be a good defense at the trial. Relevant observartions are as under :-

14. I may also refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kaptan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2021) 9 SCC 35. Relevant para is read as under :

9.3 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

15. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra 2019, (18) SCC 191, the Apex Court, after considering the ratio in the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, summed up the proposition of law, held that the exercise of power under Section 482 to quash the proceeding is an exception and not the rule. It is further observed that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CRPC though wide is to beexercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only when such exercises justified the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is further observed that the Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:26:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/11984/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of the proceeding in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the CRPC.

16. Similar view has been expressed by the Apex Court in the case of CBI Vs. Arvind Khanna 2019 ( 10) SCC 686, State of Telangana Vs. Managipet 2019, (19) SCC87 and in the case of XYZ Vs. State of Gujarat 2019, (10) SCC 337.

17. Applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision to the facts of the case on hand, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any case to exercise jurisdiction in quashing the criminal complaint under Section 482 of the CRPC.

18. For the foregoing reasons, this petition stands dismissed. Interim relief if any stands vacated. Notice/Rule is discharged.

(J. C. DOSHI,J)

19. After pronouncement of judgment, learned advocate Mr.Jain for the petitioner seeks stay of implementation of present order for period of four weeks and to continue interim relief operating in favour of the petitioner till then. However, for the reasons stated herein above, this Court is Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:26:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/11984/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined not inclined to accept the request and accordingly, it is rejected.

(J. C. DOSHI,J) MARY VADAKKAN Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:26:41 IST 2025