The main legal point established is that criminal proceedings can be quashed if the accused has settled all liabilities with the victim and received a 'no objection certificate', as per the guidelines engrafted in the power of the High Court to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

1. The applicant, by means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the charge-sheet and summoning order dated 11.08.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.408/2010, titled as State vs. M/s Gopal Food Products under Section 420, 467 & 468 IPC. The applicant also seeks to quash the proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case pending before the said court.

2. An FIR was lodged by the Oriental Bank of Commerce (respondent no.2 herein) on 14.09.2002 against the accused-applicant for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467 & 468 IPC. After the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against the accused-applicant for the selfsame offences. The cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, vide order dated 11.08.2003 and accused-applicant was summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused-applicant.

3. None is present for the complainant (respondent no.2 herein), despite personal service of notice upon him. No counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent bank either.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant drew attention of this Court towards the Annexure-11 of the present petition to indicate that a compromise took place between the accused-applicant and the respondent bank. The respondent bank, vide letter dated 07.03.2006 sent a settlement proposal under One Time Settlement (OTS) of the Reserve Bank of India, in which the amount of settlement, mode of repayment, etc., were mentioned. Thereafter, the respondent bank informed the applicant to deposit 25 percent of the settlement amount. Subsequent thereto, an undertaking deed was executed between the applicant and the respondent no.2 (bank) on 18.05.2006. On the basis of such compromise, respondent no.2 withdrew the proceedings against the applicant pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Lucknow. Certified copy of the order dated 25.05.2006 passed by the D.R.T. is enclosed as Annexure-12 to the petition.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that the entire amount due to the respondent no.2 was deposited by the applicant in terms of O.T.S. deed. ‘No dues certificate’ is also submitted as Annexure-15 to the petition, which speaks as under:-

“This is certified that the account of working capital limits availed by M/s Gopal Food Products, have been adjusted under settlement scheme of the Bank and as per the settlement terms the obligants had to repay a sum of Rs.1,47,72,000/- (Rupees one crore forty seven lac seventy two thousand) which they have repaid as per stipulated time schedule of settlement policy.

The Bank has nothing to recover from them regarding the above credit facilities.”

6. Thus, according to ‘no objection certificate’, the applicant deposited the entire dues of the respondent bank under the settlement scheme of the bank. The bank has received full and final amount and there are no dues outstanding in the name of applicant. Offences complained of against the accused-applicant are under Sections 420, 467 & 468 IPC. Offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is compoundable within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The question is – whether the respondent bank should be permitted to compound the offences complained of against the accused-applicant or not? Reliance was placed upon the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2008) 9 SCC 667 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160. In Nikhil Merchant's case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner on the ground that petitioner had discharged all liabilities towards the bank and “no dues certificate” was issued to the petitioner and bank was no more aggrieved against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the applicant, thus, submitted that since the case