JUDGMENT :

Shamim Ahmed, J.

1. Heard Shri H.N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Abhishek Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicant and Shri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 13.10.2020 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Complaint Case No. 699 of 2020 (Manoj Kumar Sharma vs. Yogendra Goswami), under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act P.S. Vrindavan District Mathura.

3. Shri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has handed over the cheque amount of Rs. 4,50,000.00 by way of bank draft No. 167559 dated 22.2.2021 re-validated on 28.6.2021 to Shri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 before this Court today itself.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has received the draft of Rs. 4,50,000/- on the instruction of his client Manoj Kumar Sharma and submits that his client is not interested to pursue the case i.e. Complaint Case No. 699 of 2020 (Manoj Kumar Sharma vs. Yogendra Goswami), under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act P.S. Vrindavan District Mathura pending in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Mathura and therefore, the proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed by this Court.

5. Considering the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the statement given by learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, a draft of Rs. 4,50,000/- is being handed over to the learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 today by the learned counsel for the applicant in Court and a photostat copy of the same is being kept in the file of this case as well as in the file of learned AGA.

6. Learned AGA has submitted that since the parties have entered into compromise and the cheque amount has been paid by way of bank draft, therefore, no useful purpose would be served if the proceedings of the aforesaid case go on further.

7. Learned counsel for the parties has drawn the attention of this Court and placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of their case:

(i) B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2003 (4) ACC 675

(ii) Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2012 (10) SCC 303

(iii) Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory through Administrator, 2013 (11) SCC 697

(iv) Narendra Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2014 (6) SCC 466

(v) Yogendra Yadav and Others vs. State of Jharkhand, 2014 (9) SCC 653

8. Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and in paragraph No. 16, the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:

"i. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

ii. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the Court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

iii. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justic