close
close
  • February 14, 2025
Complainant should not withdraw from mutual compromise, would act as “bounty” for unfair litigation: Punjab and Haryana HC

Complainant should not withdraw from mutual compromise, would act as “bounty” for unfair litigation: Punjab and Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that once parties have entered into a mutual settlement, withdrawing the same is not permitted under law.

In a check bounce case, the complainant backed away from the compromise, but the court dismissed the claim and quashed the complaint in light of an earlier position that a compromise had occurred.

Justice NS Shekhawat said, “without hesitation, it is held that respondent No. 1/complainant cannot be allowed to withdraw from the mutual settlement reached between him and the petitioner. If any of the parties could withdraw from their mutual settlement, it would amount to giving premium to an unfair trial and would also make a mockery of the judicial proceedings, which is not permitted under the law..”

These observations were made during the hearing of the plea to quash the complaint filed in a case of check bounce under Sections 138, 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the complainant had compromised the case and recovered the amount involved in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

He has also recorded a statement in which he states that he has compromised the present complaint and wants to withdraw it.

While pronouncing the case, the Court noted that the Trial Court had issued an order stating that the complainant had appeared and obtained an explanation to compromise with the accused. He therefore wishes to withdraw the present complaint.

However, during the hearing, counsel for respondents submitted that no compromise has been reached between the petitioner and the complainant and the petitioner is yet to make the payments.

After considering the arguments, the Court referred to the series of judgments of the Apex Court and the High Court to underline that where the parties have entered into a compromise and the complainant has withdrawn from it, the FIR can be quashed in such a situation.

Reliance was also placed on Ruchi Aggarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal (SLP (Crl.) No. 3769 of 2003), wherein the Court said that “the appellant, having received the compensation she sought without challenge on the terms of the compromise, now fails to accept the argument of the court can accept.” In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the woman solely for the purpose of harassing the suspects.”

In light of the above, the Court considered the compromise and quashed the complaint.

Mr. Lalit Singla, Advocate with Ms. Varsh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rahul Jaswal, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1. Ms. Sheenu Sura, DAG, Haryana.

Title: Babli v. Khillar Singh and another

Click here to read/download the order