The High Court has the power to quash criminal proceedings based on compromise, especially in cases involving non-heinous offences and post-conviction compromises, to secure the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.27 dated 19.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1881”) titled as Gurpreet Singh Vs. Sukhwant Singh as well as judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gidderbaha, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 for a period of two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- was also imposed upon him and in case of default of payment of fine, further one month rigorous imprisonment was ordered as well as order of warrant of arrest dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the fact that the matter has been compromised.

2. Respondent No.1-Gurpreet Singh had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 against the present petitioner for dishonour of cheque dated 08.01.2011 amounting to Rs.2,45,000/- drawn upon Axis Bank Limited, Faridkot.

3. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gidderbaha, after considering the entire evidence and documents on record, had convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, as under:-

Fine paid. The copy of judgment be supplied to the convict, free of costs. file be consigned to the record room after due completion.

4. An appeal was filed by the petitioner against the said order and vide order dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure P-3), when the petitioner did not appear, warrants of arrest were issued against him and accordingly, it was observed that no further action was required to be taken till the procuring of the presence of the present petitioner.

5. Notice of motion.

6. On advance notice, Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. Sarabjit S. Cheema, AAG, Punjab, appears on behalf of respondent No.2-State.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No.1 have stated that the said appeal has not been finally adjudicated and is still pending and during the pendency of the appeal, compromise dated 24.11.2021 (Annexure P-4) has been effected between the parties, as per which, all the disputes between petitioner and respondent No.1 have been resolved. The terms of the said compromise are reproduced hereinbelow:-

“PANCHAYATI COMPROMISE First Party: Gurpreet Singh Son of Jagtar Singh Resident of Village Assa Butter, Tehsil Gidarbaha District Shri Muktsar Sahib.

Second Party: Sukhwant Singh Son of Gurnam Singh Son of Gurdial Singh Resident of Village Ilmewala Tehsil and District Ferozepur, through his father, Gurnam Singh Son of Gurdial Singh. 1. That both the parties are permanent residents of the above said address.

2. That the first party registered a F.I.R. No.83 dated 12.8.2021 U/s 420/34 IPC against the second party at Police Station, Kotbhai (Case No.437/2014, 109/2015, 14/2018). In this case, the second party, Sukhwant Singh was awarded the punishment. In addition to this, one case of Cheque U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act was filed by the first party against the second party, in which also, the second party was awarded the punishment and the title of the same is Gurpreet Singh Versus Sukhwant Singh.

3. That now, the respected persons got a compromise held between both the parties and this compromise has been made regarding ending the further litigation and for living with peace from further. This compromise has been held