Punjab-Haryana High Court
Abhimanyu Deswal vs Virender Gandhi And Anr on 13 March, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037222
2024 : PHHC : 037222
265
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.11607 of 2024 in/and
CRR No.807 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13th March, 2024
Abhimanyu Deswal
... Petitioner
Versus
Virender Gandhi & another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Surjeet Bhadu, Mr. Veer Singh, Ms. Sanya Thakur &
Mr. Agam Bansal, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Khyati Avnish, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Rahul Mohan, Sr. Dy. Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondent/State.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
The prayer made in this application is for allowing the
revision petition and setting aside the order of conviction and
consequently, acquit the petitioner on the basis of settlement arrived at
between the parties by way of Memorandum of Understanding
(Annexure A-1).
In view of the averments made in the application and in the
interest of justice, the same is allowed as prayed for.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037222
CRR No.807 of 2023 (O&M) 2024 : PHHC : 037222
1. The petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated
27.02.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula
dismissing the appeal filed by him against the order of conviction and
sentence dated 30.10.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Panchkula in complaint No.NACT 435 of 2015 under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as,
'the Act') filed by respondent No.1.
2. While drawing the attention of this Court to Annexure A-1,
which is Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed between the
parties, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have
arrived at an amicable settlement subsequent to the conviction of the
petitioner.
3. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1489
of 2012 titled as 'Ramgopal & another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh'
decided on 29.09.2021 and another judgment of this Court in 'Sube
Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and another' : 2013(4) RCR
(Criminal) 102.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
complainant/respondent No.1 does not dispute the submissions made
by counsel opposite and the factum of MOU having been indeed
executed between the parties. He has also not opposed the prayer made
by the counsel opposite for quashing of the complaint in question along
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037222
CRR No.807 of 2023 (O&M) 2024 : PHHC : 037222
with the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Panchkula.
5. Learned State counsel too submits that there are no other
accused other than the petitioners and respondent No.1 is the only
aggrieved person in the complaint in question.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material on record.
7. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties by
way of MOU (Annexure A-1) and the principles laid down by the Apex
Court in Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 titled as 'Ramgopal &
another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh' decided on 29.09.2021 and this
Court in Sube Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and another :
2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102, the instant petition is allowed. The
aforesaid complaint and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom including the order dated 27.02.2023 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, are quashed.
8. Needless to say the parties shall remain bound by the terms
of the MOU so executed between them.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
JUDGE
March 13, 2024
rps
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
