Anil Singla vs Mukesh Aggarwal and Another

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

Crl. Misc. No. 8863 of 2010

This is an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C for placing on record the affidavit of Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal, respondent No. 1.

Application is allowed and the affidavit of Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal, respondent No. 1 is taken on record.

Crl. Rev. No. 45-SB of 2010

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent No. 1 has filed a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has issued a cheque to the tune of Rs. 2,60,000/- to the complainant-respondent to repay the amount received by him by way of personal loan from the complainant with the assurance that on presentation of the cheque to the bank, the same will encashed. Further, on presentation, the cheque was dishonoured.

The petitioner was convicted and sentence vide Order dated 10.08.2009 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar. The petitioner filed an appeal against the Order of conviction. However, the said appeal was dismissed on 17.12.2009 by the Additional Judge, Hisar. Thus, upholding the conviction of the petitioner. Thereafter, the present revision petition has been filed.

During the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner has entered into a compromise with the complainant-Mukesh Aggarwal respondent No. 1. An application to place an affidavit of Mukesh Kumar son of Ram Kumar Aggarwal has been filed. As per the compromise, the complainant-Mukesh Kumar entered into a compromise out of his own sweet will. It is also stated in the affidavit that he had received the entire cheque amount from Sunil Singla, brother of the accused-petitioner at Hisar on 10.02.2010 in full and final settlement of his all claims. It is further stated that he has no objection, if the offence is ordered to be compounded/compromised and the petitioner is acquitted. A separate statement to that effect has also been got recorded before this Court.

The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 910, while quashing the FIR and all proceedings arising out of the same held that the continuation of criminal proceedings in view of the compromise would be an abuse of the process of law. In that case also, the petitioners were convicted u/s 498-A IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment of 18 months. An appeal was filed against the conviction order and during pendency of the appeal the parties had settled their differences. However, they filed petition before the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complainant as well as conviction order on account of the compromise. The High Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved, they challenged the same before the Apex Court. The Apex Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and all the proceedings arising as well as order conviction.

The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that 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 u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is ''finest hour of justice''. Disputes which have their genesis not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under:

The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C which can affect the inherent power of this Court u/s 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non- compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar u/s 320 of the Cr.P.C in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.

It is apparent that the dispute is totally personal in nature. In view of the well settled proposition of law, there is no impediment in accepting the compromise. It would be in the interest of justice to accept the compromise in the facts of the present case.

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court vide judgment and Order dated 10.08.2009 and 17.12.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar and Additional Judge, Hisar, upholding the conviction is set aside and the petitioner -Anil Singla, is, accordingly, acquitted of the aforesaid charge.

The Revision Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.