Mehfil dispute ends as HC okays compromise

Dhawans and Khans agree on Rs 20 lakh as final payment

Chandigarh, January 24
The dispute between the Dhawans and the Khans over Mehfil’s accounts has been amicably resolved. As per the terms and conditions of a compromise, Mehfil Hospitality Limited has agreed to give Rs 20 lakh to SA Khan “in full and final payment pertaining to all dues and claims”.

Following the compromise, the two battling sides have decided not to prosecute each other in criminal cases. As a result, a complaint, a summoning order and an FIR registered in the matter have been quashed by Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Former MP-cum-managing director Harmohan Dhawan, his wife Satinder and son Bikram had earlier offered to allot the shares of Mehfil Hospitality Limited to complainant Khan and his brother SM Khan.

It was claimed that they spent huge amounts on renovation and payment of rent as the restaurant started functioning. It was also claimed that after reconciling statements of accounts prepared by both parties on May 31, 2009, Rs 57,43,642 was worked out to be outstanding against the Dhawans, payable to the Khans.

Consequently, the Dhawans issued three cheques, but those were dishonoured as soon as those were presented for clearance on the grounds of insufficient funds.

Faced with this situation, a complaint was filed against the Dhawans under provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Taking cognisance of the complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate summoned the petitioners and the defendants to face trial by means of a summoning order dated August 10, 2009.

Almost simultaneously, a criminal case was registered against the Khans on the allegations of stealing the cheques on Harmohan Dhawan’s complaint. An FIR was registered under Sections 380 and 420 of the IPC at the Sector-17 police station on October 9, 2009.

Taking up the matter, Justice Sullar asserted, “During the pendency of the petitions, good sense prevailed and the parties amicably settled their disputes and compromised the matter by virtue of a deed dated December 6, 2011.”

He further stated, “Having regard to the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties and having gone through the record with their help and after bestowal of thoughts over the matter, to my mind, justice will be sub-served if the complaint, the summoning order and the FIR are quashed and the parties allowed to live in peace.”

Before parting with the order, Justice Sullar added, “Courts play a role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and everlasting congeniality in society and the resolution of a dispute by way of compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract immediate and prompt attention of a court.”