Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (10) TMI 617

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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. - CRM-M-2832 of 2017 (O&M .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 0-B IPC at Police Station Daresi, District Ludhiana against respondent No.2 Satish Garg and one Naresh Jain, who is proprietor of M/s N.K. Knitwears, 4463, Street No.7, Near Punjab Medicos, New Madhopuri, Ludhiana for harassing and using abusive language and to extend threat to the petitioner. However, during pendency of those proceedings i.e. the complaint under Section 138 of the Act filed by respondent No.2 and the aforesaid FIR registered at the behest of brother of the petitioner, a compromise deed dated 21.08.2015 (Annexure P-4) (colly) was executed between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.2 Satish Garg is a signatory to the said compromise deed dated 21.08.2015 and acting on the said comp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er was constrained to file the present petition seeking quashing of complaint under Section 138 of the Act and the summoning order. The petitioner has paid all the outstanding dues, which has duly been reflected/reduced into writing in the compromise deed dated 21.08.2015. In these circumstances, the very continuance of complaint under Section 138 of the Act is nothing but a total abuse of the process of law. The respondent has become dishonest. Therefore, the complaint as well as the subsequent order of summoning are liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has argued that no doubt, the compromise deed dated 21.08.2015 was entered between the parties and the respondent No.2 is a signatory of the same, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sal of the extract of compromise deed dated 21.08.2015, reproduced hereinabove, leaves no manner of doubt that the respondent No.2 has acted against the compromise deed duly signed by him. The compromise deed is duly signed not only by respondent No.2, but by the other witnesses as well. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the complaint under Section 138 of the Act filed by respondent No.2 deserves to be quashed. While not pursuing the FIR registered against the respondent No.2, the petitioner has acted on the compromise deed and accordingly, the police filed a cancellation report in the FIR. In the case of Ram Lal and others Versus State of Haryana and another 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 823, it was held by this Court th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arises is allowed to continue.... Therefore, having regard to the judgment passed in Ram Lal s case (supra), 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates