Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1112 (PNJ)

Brij Kishore v. State Of Haryana

2004-09-29

JASBIR SINGH

body2004
Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. Petitioner has moved this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash complaint dated 3.3.1989 (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 26.9.1989 (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings on the ground that filing of complaint and summoning order thereafter was not justified. 2. It is apparent from record that respondent No. 2 filed above mentioned complaint against the petitioner for commission of an offence under Section 420 IPC, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had purchased wheat from respondent No. 2 in the year 1988 on a promise that payment for the same shall be made on receipt of goods. On demand, petitioner issued a cheque on 30.8.1998 towards price of goods received by it. It was a postdated cheque. On presentation, cheque was not encashed on the ground that there was no amount in bank account of the petitioner, as such by issuing cheque, forgery and cheating had been committed upon respondent No. 2. It has further been stated that at the time when wheat was purchased, intention of the petitioner was dishonest. Respondent No. 2 made an application to Police Station City, Narwana but no action was taken. Under those circumstances, respondent No. 2 was compelled to file complaint, referred to above. Trial Court after recording preliminary evidence issued summoning order (Annexure P2) vide order dated 26.9.1989, to the petitioner to face trial. Hence, this application. 3. Amount involved is only Rs. 7,000/-. At the time of arguments on 21.7.2004, petitioner showed his intention to make payment of amount along with some amount towards interest. After agreement between the parties, amount was settled at Rs. 10,000/-. Today, counsel for the petitioner has handed over Rs. 10,000/- to counsel for respondent No. 2. Counsel for respondent No. 2 states that he is satisfied and now no grievance remains as far as present dispute is concerned. Counsel for respondent No. 2 further states that he has no objection in case complaint and summoning order in question are ordered to be quashed as prayed by the petitioner. 4. This court feels that the parties have settled their dispute. Necessary payment has been made by the petitioner to respondent No. 2. As such, they have decided to live in peace, which effort on their part, requires to be appreciated. 4. This court feels that the parties have settled their dispute. Necessary payment has been made by the petitioner to respondent No. 2. As such, they have decided to live in peace, which effort on their part, requires to be appreciated. A settlement which emerges from hearts of the individuals will be more lasting than the one which will be enforced by invoking penal provisions of law. Trial Courts are already over-burdened and have many more important matters to deal with than the one in hand. 5. In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, this application is allowed. Complaint dated 3.3.1989 (Annexure P-1), summoning order dated 26.9.1989 (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed.