Sudarshan Kumar Duggal vs M/S Amritsar Pulp And Board Mills … on 12 October, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH




                         Criminal Misc. No. M-18851 of 2009
                         Date of decision : October 12, 2009


Sudarshan Kumar Duggal
                                           ....Petitioner
                         versus

M/s Amritsar Pulp and Board Mills (Pvt) Ltd and another

                                           ....Respondents


Coram:      Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal


Present :   Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for
            Mr. PS Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner

            Mr. Naveen Mahajan, Advocate for respondent no. 1

            Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab
            for respondent no. 2


L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

Affidavit of respondent no. 1 filed today in Court is taken on

record along with annexed copy of compromise.

Sudarshan Kumar Duggal has filed this petition under section

482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) for quashing of

criminal complaint dated 7.11.2008, Annexure P/1 filed by respondent no. 1

against petitioner and others under sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC and for

quashing of summoning order dated 17.2.2009, Annexure P/2 and all

consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

In affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 complainant it

has been affirmed that compromise dated 1.10.2009 has been effected by
Criminal Misc. No. M-18851 of 2009 -2-

respondent no. 1 with the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1

states that in view of compromise, respondent no. 1 has no objection to the

quashing of the impugned complaint and consequential proceedings.

In appropriate cases, criminal prosecution can be quashed on

the basis of compromise by exercising power under section 482 Cr.P.C.,

even if the offences are not compoundable. It was so held by Full Bench

of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh vs State of Punjab, 2007 (3)

Law Herald (Punjab & Haryana) 2225.

In the instant case, compromise has been effected between

petitioner and respondent no. 1- complainant. Grievance of the

complainant-respondent no. 1 has since been satisfied. An amount of Rs 20

lacs has been paid to the petitioner’s company by complainant-respondent

no. 1 and it is accordingly a fit case in which the impugned complaint

should be quashed.

In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and the

impugned complaint dated 7.11.2008, Annexure P/1 is quashed along with

summoning order dated 17.2.2009, Annexure P/2 and all consequential

proceedings arising therefrom as against the petitioner.

                                                      ( L.N. Mittal )
October 12, 2009                                           Judge
  'dalbir'