- (1.) COUNSEL for the respondent-complainant has stated at Bar that the respondent firm has already received the amount involved in the cheques, as full and final settlement of the loan and it has no objection if the proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are quashed.
(2.) IN the light of the above development, no useful purpose would be served with the continue of proceedings filed under Section 138 of the Act as due to compromise, the complainant may not support the allegations and the trial may end into acquittal. It would be a sheer wastage of valuable time of the Court. Under these circumstances, in order to avoid misuse of the process, and also to avoid unnecessary harassment of the parties, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to invoke the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) IN this regard, my view is strengthened by the Apex Court decision in case B. S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another wherein it was observed as under: "it is thus, clear that Madhu Limaye's case does not lay down any general proposition limiting power of quashing the criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint as vested in Section 482 of the code or extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power. ";