9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 617 - HC - Indian LawsComplaint under Section 138 of the Act - entering a compromise deed - Held that - The respondent No.2 has no right to back out from the compromise deed dated 21.08.2015 particularly when he has made a specific averment in the said compromise that he has received the cheque amount to his entire satisfaction and has further made a statement that nothing remains due between the parties and he undertakes to withdraw the complaint filed by him under Section 138 of the Act. It is on the basis of compromise deed dated 21.08.2015 the petitioner and his brother did not pursue the FIR case and by not coming forward to honour the compromise the respondent No.2 intends to take undue benefit without there being any right whatsoever. This conduct on the part of respondent No.2 backing out from the compromise needs to be deprecated. Accordingly in the light of the compromise deed dated 21.08.2015 (Annexure P-4) (colly) the complaint No.271 dated 09.07.2014 (Annexure P-1) filed by respondent No.2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. The summoning order dated 10.07.2014 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Ludhiana whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial under Section 138 of the Act in the aforesaid complaint is set aside.
Issues Involved:
- Application under Section 482 Cr.PC for placing reply to main petition and CRM No.24483 of 2017 on record. - Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and challenging summoning order. - Dispute regarding payment as claimed in the complaint under Section 138 of the Act. - Interpretation of compromise deed dated 21.08.2015 and its impact on the complaint and summoning order. - Examination of whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Act and summoning order should be quashed based on the compromise deed. Detailed Analysis: 1. Application under Section 482 Cr.PC for Placing Reply on Record: The judgment begins with an application filed by the applicant-respondent No.2 under Section 482 Cr.PC for placing on record reply to the main petition and CRM No.24483 of 2017. The reply is taken on record subject to all just exceptions, and the CRM stands allowed. 2. Petition for Quashing Complaint under Section 138 of the Act: The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash complaint No.271 dated 09.07.2014 filed by respondent No.2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The challenge was also laid to the summoning order dated 10.07.2014. The petitioner contended that a compromise deed dated 21.08.2015 was executed between the parties, where respondent No.2 agreed to withdraw the complaint under Section 138. The petitioner argued that the complaint's continuation was an abuse of the process of law, as all outstanding dues were paid as per the compromise. 3. Dispute Regarding Payment as Claimed in the Complaint: The respondent argued that the amount claimed in the complaint under Section 138 had not been paid by the petitioner, despite the compromise deed. It was contended that the petitioner should not be allowed to quash the complaint unless the trial court determines whether the amount was paid or not. 4. Interpretation of Compromise Deed and Impact on Complaint and Summoning Order: The compromise deed dated 21.08.2015 was crucial in this case, as it clearly outlined the terms agreed upon by the parties. The deed stated that the respondent had received the cheque amount to his satisfaction and undertook to withdraw the complaint under Section 138. The petitioner and his brother acted on the compromise, leading to the police filing a cancellation report in the related FIR. 5. Examination of Quashing the Complaint and Summoning Order: The judgment analyzed the compromise deed and the conduct of the parties. It cited a previous case where entering into a compromise and then backing out was considered misuse of the court's process. The court concluded that the respondent's behavior in not honoring the compromise was unjust and led to the quashing of the complaint under Section 138 and the summoning order. In conclusion, the judgment allowed the petition, quashing the complaint under Section 138 of the Act and setting aside the summoning order based on the compromise deed dated 21.08.2015.
|
