- (1.) HEARD Sri M.L. Jain, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. None present for the opposite party no.2.
(2.) THIS criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 31.10.2005 passed by Ist A.C.J.M., Agra in Criminal Complaint No.1648 of 2005 (Mubarak Ali Vs. Sukhram and others), under Section 138 N.I. Act, summoning the revisionists under Section 138 N.I. Act.
(3.) THE brief facts relating to the case are that the opposite party no.2 filed a Complaint Case No.1648 of 2005 against Sukhram, Radhey Shyam, Sameer Raza and Branch Manager of Canara Bank, Agra under Sections 138 N.I. Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. with the allegation that the complainant was owner of plot measuring 100 sq. yards out of Gata No.272 vide sale deed dated 25.2.1993 and later on a dispute arose between the complainant and opposite parties no.1, 2 and 3 which was settled by way of compromise deed dated 17.2.2005; that according to the compromise, the opposite parties no.1, 2 and 3 had to pay Rs.30,000/ - to the complainant upon which he had to give vacant possession towards the disputed part of land in his possession; that accused -opposite parties no.1 and 2 jointly issued cheque for Rs.15,000/ - on 2.4.2005 and opposite party no.3 issued another cheque for Rs.15,000/0 to the claimant but both the cheques were dishonoured hence the complainant served the legal notice on the opposite parties and the complaint is filed within time. The learned magistrate after recording the statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. passed the impugned order issuing process against the accused -opposite parties no.1, 2 and 3 taking cognizance against them under Section 138 N.I. Act and held that no case under Sections 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. is made out against the opposite party no.4 the Branch Manager of the Bank. Learned counsel for the revisionists Radhey Shyam and Sameer Raza argued that according to the compromise agreement dated 17.2.2004 the complainant had agreed to hand over the vacant possession of the property in his possession and will be having no right, title or interest in the property in question; that it is clearly mentioned in the written agreement, the copy of which is filed as Annexure No.3 to the affidavit filed on 7.2.2006, that in case of non -payment of cheques, the compromise itself shall automatically become null and void and ineffective. It was argued that in this case the revisionists were not under any liability to make payment of the amount to the complainant, except under the terms of compromise agreement dated 17.2.2004 and since it is clearly mentioned in the compromise that in case of non -payment of cheques, the compromise will become null and void and ineffective; on account of dishonoured of cheques the complainant is not bound to hand over the vacant possession of property in question as the compromise agreement becomes null and void, on happending of the event mentioned therein; that the complainant had no right to take any action against the revisionists; that the learned magistrate without looking into the compromise agreement which is the basis of complaint has passed the order summoning the revisionists without due application of judicial mind; that since the compromise agreement is null and void, no action can be taken against the revisionists for dishonour of cheques as they are not liable for payment of amount of Rs.30,000/ - under cheques as well as the complainant is not liable to hand over possession of the property in question; that in view of the facts mentioned above no cognizable offence is made out against the revisionists as they are not under any liability to make payment of the amount.;