Om Parkash and Others vs Randhir Khanna

Gurdev Singh, J.—Petitioners, Om Parkash, Harish Bhutani and Manoj Taneja, have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code")invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing complaint No. 644 dated 3.10.2005 titled as "Randhir Khanna v. Quality Textiles Finishing Mills and Ors." filed u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") pending in the Court of JMIC, Amritsar, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom as well as order dated 3.8.2007 (Annexure P-2), vide which they were declared as proclaimed offenders.

The above said complaint was filed by Randhir Khanna, respondent-complainant against the petitioners-accused u/s 138 of the Act and on the basis of the preliminary evidence produced before the Judicial Magistrate, they were summoned to stand their trial for the aforesaid offence, which was in respect of the dishonoring of three cheque, detailed in the complaint, and the non-payment of the amount of those cheques, in spite of the issuance of statutory notice by the complainant. Petitioners did not appear before the Judicial Magistrate in spite of their service and ultimately, proceedings were initiated against them u/s 82 of the Code and they were declared as proclaimed offenders. After recording the evidence of the complainant u/s 299 of the Code, the records were consigned. Subsequently, the petitioners appeared and made an application for anticipatory bail. During the pendency of that bail application, the petitioners deposited Rs. 45,000/-; the total amount of the cheques, and in view of that deposit they were granted anticipatory bail.

Notice of the petition was given to the respondent.

I have heard learned Counsel for both the sides.

It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioners that once the amount of cheques has been paid to the respondent, the complaint is liable to be quashed. He has also submitted that there are chances of compromise between the parties and that an opportunity be granted to the petitioners to enter into such compromise.

The petitioners do not stand absolved of the criminal liability already incurred by them simply on the payment of the amount of the cheques. The question would have been different, if the parties had compounded the offence as such an offence is compoundable u/s 147 of the Act. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have already compounded the offence with the respondent. There is no ground for quashing the complaint. So far the prayer of the petitioner for compromise, is concerned, they can resort to that compromise before the trial court.

Petition is dismissed accordingly.