Crl. Misc. No. M-20007 of 2009 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-20007 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision : November 18, 2009
Manish Madan .... Petitioner
Vs.
Vasdev .... Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Seema Pasricha, Advocate
for the respondent.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Crl. Misc. No. 58615 of 2009 :
Application is allowed and reply on behalf of the respondent,
filed today in Court, is taken on record.
Main Case :
Manish Madan has filed this petition under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for quashing of order dated
13.10.2007 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 16.04.2009 (Annexure P-7)
arising out of the Award of Lok Adalat.
The petitioner had filed criminal complaint (Annexure P-1)
against respondent Vasdev under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable
Crl. Misc. No. M-20007 of 2009 (O&M) 2
Instruments Act, 1881. When the complaint was at the final stage,
respondent made statement (Annexure P-3) dated 13.10.2007 in Lok Adalat
agreeing to pay Rs.76,500/- against cheque amount of Rs.90,000/-. The
respondent paid Rs.3,000/- at the time of making the aforesaid statement
and agreed to pay Rs.20,000/- on 22.10.2007 and the remaining amount in
monthly instalments of Rs.3,000/- each commencing from 10.11.2007. In
view of said statement made by the respondent regarding compromise
effected in Lok Adalat, the petitioner got the complaint dismissed as
withdrawn, vide order dated 13.10.2007 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, which has been assailed in the instant
petition. The petitioner also filed execution petition (Annexure P-5) for
recovery of the balance amount as per compromise, but by making
statement (Annexure P-6) on 16.04.2009, the said execution petition was
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.04.2009 (Annexure P-7). The
petitioner stated that he would initiate proceedings for revival of the
complaint and for action against the respondent. Accordingly, the instant
petition has been filed for revival of complaint by setting aside order dated
13.10.2007 (Annexure P-4) and also by setting aside order dated 16.04.2009
(Annexure P-9).
In reply, respondent has pleaded that by way of compromise, he
had agreed to pay Rs.3,000/- only and signed the statement in the Court, but
he was not aware that he had to make any further payment because he had
not borrowed any amount from the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file.
The plea of the respondent that he was to make payment of
Rs.3,000/- only, which he paid on 13.10.2007 at the time of making
statement and that he was not to make any further payment, cannot be
accepted. There is categorical statement (Annexure P-3) made by the
respondent undertaking to pay a total sum of Rs.76,500/-. The said
Crl. Misc. No. M-20007 of 2009 (O&M) 3
statement was recorded in Hindi and had been signed by the respondent in
English. Consequently, the plea of respondent that he was not aware of his
liability to make further payment being illiterate, cannot be accepted. The
said statement has also been counter-signed by counsel for the respondent
in the lower court. On the basis of said statement, the complaint was
dismissed as withdrawn. However, the respondent has turned dishonest and
has not complied with his statement (Annexure P-3) made in the trial court.
The respondent has thus committed fraud with the Court. This Court, in
exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can pass
appropriate order to serve the ends of justice and to undo the fraud
committed by the respondent. Purity of the system of administration of
justice has to be maintained and it is the duty of this Court to do so by
passing appropriate order. The respondent has polluted the stream of
administration of justice by making statement on oath before the trial court
regarding compromise and then by not complying with the terms thereof,
although the respondent secured withdrawal of the complaint on the basis
of statement made by him regarding compromise. The respondent is
estopped from challenging said statement having taken advantage thereof.
In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and
order dated 13.10.2007 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal is set aside and criminal complaint (Annexure
P-1) filed by the petitioner against the respondent is restored to the files of
learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal for proceeding therewith in
accordance with law from the stage at which it was pending before passing
of the impugned order dated 13.10.2007 (Annexure P-4).
The parties are directed to appear before trial Magistrate on
21.12.2009.
November 18, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE