A compromise in a civil suit does not automatically lead to the withdrawal of related criminal proceedings unless explicitly stated; the court cannot enforce a void contract.

ORDER

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

"It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to quash the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and its all proceedings filed by the respondent no.2 against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 467, 468, 471 and 423 of IPC, 1860, which is registered as Case No.ST/167/2018 (Indu Arya Vs. Ramesh Shriwas & Others) and are pending consideration, before the Second Additional Session Judge, to the First Additional Session Judge, Bhopal (MP), in the interest of justice.

Any other order/orders that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed."

2. A solitary contention was made by counsel for the applicants that a Civil Suit was pending between the parties and accordingly, a compromise application was filed in which it was specifically mentioned that respondent No.2 shall withdraw the criminal prosecution. The said compromise application was allowed by order dated 14/07/2018 passed by Mega Lok Adalat, Bench No.26, Bhopal in RCS No.628A/2017. It is submitted that however, respondent No.2 has not withdrawn the criminal prosecution, therefore same is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that even the applicants were granted bail on the basis of no objection expressed by the complainant.

3. Per contra, application is vehemently opposed by counsel for the respondents.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The moot question for consideration is as to whether this Court can quash the proceedings only on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties in RCS No.628A/2017.

6. Although in the compromise application it was mentioned that respondent No.2 shall withdraw her criminal case on the basis of compromise but in the order passed by Mega Lok Adalat, there is no reference of condition of withdrawal of criminal case.

7. Furthermore, counsel for the applicants was directed to address this Court in the light of Section 28 of Contract Act, which reads as under:-

"28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void.— Every agreement,—

(a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or

(b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto, from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to the extent.

Exception 1.—Saving of contract to refer to arbitration dispute that may arise.—This section shall not render illegal a contract, by which two or more persons agree that any dispute which may arise between them in respect of any subject or class of subjects shall be referred to arbitration, and that only the amount awarded in such arbitration shall be recoverable in respect of the dispute so referred.

Exception 2.—Saving of contract to refer questions that have already arisen.—Nor shall this section render illegal any contract in writing, by which two or more persons agree to refer to arbitration any question between them which has already arisen, or affect any provision of any law in force for the time being as to references to arbitration.

Exception 3.—Saving of a guarantee agreement of a bank or a financial institution.—This section shall not render illegal a contract in writing by which any bank or financial institution stipulate a term in a guarantee or any agreement making a provision for guarantee for extinguishment of the rights or discharge of any party thereto from any liability under or in respect of such guarantee or agreement on the expiry of a specified period which is not less than one year from the date of occurring or non-occurring of a specified event for extinguishment or disch