Mehfil Hospitality Ltd. and Others vs S.A. Khan

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of the above indicated two petitions, by virtue of this common judgment in order to avoid the repetition. However, for facilitation, the facts have been extracted from CRM No. M-30540 of 2009 in this context. The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for deciding the limited core question raised in these petitions and emanating from the record, is that Harmohan Dhawan, Managing Director (petitioner No. 2), his wife Smt. Satinder Dhawan (petitioner No. 3) and son Bikram Dhawan (petitioner No. 4), Directors offered to allot the shares of Mehfil Hospitality Limited (petitioner No. 1) to complainant S.A. Khan (respondent) and his brother S.M. Khan. They were claimed to have spent huge amount for renovation, payment of rent and restaurant started functioning. It was claimed that after reconciling the statements of accounts prepared by both the parties on 31.5.2009, a total sum of Rs. 57,43,642/- was worked out to be outstanding against the petitioner-accused and payable to complainant-respondent and his brother S.M. Khan. Consequently, the petitioner-accused issued the three cheques in favour of complainant in discharge of their indicated financial liability. As soon as the complainant presented the cheques for clearance, the same were dishonoured, on the ground of insufficient funds. Faced with the situation, the complainant filed the complaint (Annexure P6) against the petitioner-accused u/s 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act").

Sequelly, taking the cognizance on the complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate summoned the petitioner-accused to face their trial for the commission of above mentioned offences, by means of summoning order dated 10.8.2009 (Annexure P7).

Aggrieved by the initiation of criminal proceedings, the petitioner-accused preferred the present petition bearing CRM No. M-30540 of 2009 (for brevity "1st petition"), challenging the complaint (Annexure P6) and summoning order (Annexure P7), invoking the provisions of Section 482, Cr.P.C.

Almost at the same time, in the wake of complaint of Harmohan Dhawan, a criminal case was registered against S.A. Khan and his brother S.M. Khan for stealing the cheques, by way of FIR No. 318 dated 9.10.2009 (Annexure P1) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 420, IPC by the police of Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh.

Dissatisfied with the registration of criminal case, S.A. Khan has also directed the petition i.e. CRM No. M-37677 of 2011 (in short "the 2nd petition"), challenging the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) under the provisions of Section 482, Cr.P.C.

During the pendency of above mentioned petitions, the good sense prevailed and parties have amicably settled their disputes and compromised the matter, by virtue of compromise deed dated 6.12.2011 (Annexure P2) (in 2nd petition). As per the terms and conditions of compromise, the 2nd party (Mehfil Hospitality Ltd.) has agreed to give Rs. 20 lacs to 1st party (S.A. Khan) in full and final payment pertaining to all dues/claims of 1st party and his brother S.M. Khan. In pursuance to this payment, a sum of Rs. 5 lacs has been paid in cash, which was acknowledged by the 1st party. The balance payment of Rs. 15 lacs is to be given by way of two cheques, bearingNo.018340 dated 15.2.2012 for Rs.5 lacs and cheque No.018339 dated 25.3.2012 for Rs. 10 lacs. In view of compromise and the statement of claim, the parties do not want to prosecute each other in the criminal cases. That means, the parties have amicably settled their disputes in the manner depicted hereinbefore.

Moreover, learned Counsel for the parties are ad idem that in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the instant petitions deserve to be accepted.

Thus, such being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in the petitions is, as to whether the complaint (Annexure P6), summoning order (Annexure P7) in 1st petition and FIR (Annexure P1) in 2nd petition deserve to be quashed in this relevant connection or not ?

Having regard to the rival contentions of learned Counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, justice would be subserved, if the complaint (Annexure P6), summoning order (Annexure P7) in 1st petition and FIR (Annexure P1) in 2nd petition are quashed and the parties are allowed to live in peace.

What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the law of settlement of criminal disputes by way of compromise is no more res integra and is well settled.

The clear and explicit intention of the Legislature in this context was transformed in reality by Hon''ble Apex Court in cases Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors., IV (2008) CCR 597 (SC) : 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 827; B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, II (2003) SLT 689 : II (2003) CCR 57 (SC) ; 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 (SC) and Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another, VII (2007) SLT 292 : III (2007) DLT(Crl.) 661 (SC) : III (2007) CCR 232 (SC) : 7(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052.

The crux of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the power u/s 482, Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The Court is a vital and an extraordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society and resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery if the statement is fair being free from under pressure.

Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to such money dispute, on the basis of lawful settlement within the frame work and restriction depicted by Hon''ble Apex Court. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is fully attracted in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.

As is evident from the record that in the instant case, as the parties have settled their disputes, they undertook to abide by the terms and conditions of settlement (Annexure P2), therefore, to me, there is no impediment in translating their wishes into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petitions are hereby accepted. Consequently, the complaint (Annexure P6), summoning order (Annexure P7) in 1st petition and FIR (Annexure PI) in 2nd petition are quashed. The petitioners in both the cases are discharged from the indicated cases, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.