Allowed

Vijender Anjan v. Joginder Singh Bedi and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Feb 2012CRM-M/16314/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the complaint under Section 138 NI Act and summoning order against the petitioner only. The court held that since the petitioner had paid his share amount and the complainant had no objection, Section 482 Cr.P.C. justified quashing proceedings against him, while continuing them against other accused.

What did the court decide?

Complaint under Section 138 NI Act and summoning order dated 11.03.2008 quashed qua the petitioner only; proceedings against other accused persons to continue.

Vijender Anjan Vs Joginder Singh Bedi and Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM M 16314 of 2008 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM M 16314 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.02.2012

¶4

Vijender Anjan

¶5

........ Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Joginder Singh Bedi and another .......Respondent(s)

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

-.-

¶10

Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate with Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the respondents

¶12

-.-

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶15

Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

¶17

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (P9) and summoning order dated 11.03.2008 (P10) pending in the Court of Shri Mahesh Kumar, JMIC, UT, Chandigarh.

¶18

Facts in brief are that the complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act on the ground that in order to discharge the financial liability, the accused has issued cheque in favour of the complainant. However, on presentation, the same

¶19

CRM M 16314 of 2008 2

¶20

were received back dishonoured. Thereafter, a legal notice was served upon the accused but in vain. In the complaint, it was alleged that the complainant invested Rs.10,00,000/- with respondent No. 2 and after one year, fresh agreement was executed to pay the agreed amount of Rs.16,70,000/- as per agreement dated 23.10.2006 between all the accused and authorised signatory of the company on behalf of al the Directors signed the cheque in favour of respondent No. 1 and delivered cheque bearing no. 483975 dated 30.09.2007 for 16,70,000/- in order to discharge legal liability.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner

¶22

has already paid the amount of his share to the complainant i.e. Rs.4,00,000/- and prayed the said complaint be quashed against the petitioner.

¶23

Complainant Joginder Singh Bedi is present in Court today along with his counsel and has filed his affidavit, stating therein, that since the petitioner has made the payment of his share to him and nothing is due against the petitioner, he has no objection if the complaint qua the petitioner is allowed to be quashed.

¶24

Thus, it is not disputed that respondent No. 2 has compromised the matter with the petitioner and the petitioner has already paid the payment of his share i.e . Rs.4,00,000/-.

¶25

This Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill v. Malkiat Kaur reported as 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 256 quashed the proceedings against one of the accused on the basis of compromise, whereas proceedings against the other co-accused were allowed to continue.

¶26

The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another- 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052

¶27

CRM M 16314 of 2008 3

¶28

has observed as under:-

¶29

“The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. 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 reduced 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 exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.”

¶30

The Apex Court in the case of ' Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of

¶31

Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:-

¶32

“6. We need to emphasize 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 of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”

¶33

Taking into account that the petitioner has already paid the amount of his share to the complainant No. 1 and the same has been duly accepted by the complainant, there is no reason as to why compromise qua the petitioner should not be accepted.

¶34

CRM M 16314 of 2008 4

¶35

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (P9) and summoning order dated 11.03.2008 (P10) pending in the Court of Shri Mahesh Kumar, JMIC, UT, Chandigarh are hereby quashed qua the petitioner only. However, the complaint qua the rest of the accused persons shall continue.

¶36

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶37

24.02.2012 mohan

Vijender Anjan v. Joginder Singh Bedi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijender Anjan v. Joginder Singh Bedi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shilpa Johar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Hoshiari Lal Vs State of Punjab

Aashish Chaudhary & Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sulakhan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Gurcharan Singh Bhatti Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.

Babu Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab