M.L. Sharma and Another vs Rajeev Chaudhary

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal complaint 11630 dated 22.12.2009 (Annexure P1) titled as Rajeev Chaudhary v. M L Sharma and another, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh which was filed by the respondent complainant on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. In the present case, the aforesaid said complaint was filed by respondent with the allegations that he is the ex-husband of petitioner No. 2. It is also alleged that the complainant has given his ATM Card to petitioner No. 2 and she has misused the same and fraudulently, got withdrew the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-from the Bank through the said ATM card.

Petitioner No. 1 M L Sharma, who is father of petitioner No. 2 is present in Court along with his counsel and got his statement recorded that the matter has been compromised. In pursuance to the said compromise, he has handed over a demand draft for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-bearing No. 596385 dated 25.04.2012 issued by the State Bank of India to respondent Rajeev Chaudhary. In the said statement, he also stated that he withdraws all the allegations made in the present petition in view of the said compromise.

Complainant-Rajeev Chaudhary is also present in Court along with his counsel and got recorded his statement stating therein that the matter has been compromised. In pursuance to the said compromise,l he has received a demand draft of Rs.5,00,000/-from petitioner No. 1 in Court today. In his statement, he also stated that he withdraws all the allegations made in the complaint and has no objection if the said complaint and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed.

From the above, it is clear that the parties have amicably compromised the matter and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings.

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 has observed as under:-

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 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 u/s 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.

The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:-

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.

Taking into account the statement of petitioner No. 1 and the respondent recorded in the Court today admitting the factum of the said compromise, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present complaint and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and criminal complaint No. 11630 dated 22.12.2009 (Annexure P1) titled as Rajeev Chaudhary v. M L Sharma and another, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

In view of the above and the statement made by petitioner No. 1, the allegations made in the complaint filed by the respondent as well as in the present petition made by the petitioners are deemed to have been withdrawn. Allowed in the aforesaid terms.