Madan Lal vs Jagbir Singh
2009 Latest Caselaw 3306 Del

Citation : 2009 Latest Caselaw 3306 Del
Judgement Date : 21 August, 2009

Delhi High Court

Madan Lal vs Jagbir Singh on 21 August, 2009

Author: G. S. Sistani

22.

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     CRL.REV.P. 42/2009


      MADAN LAL                           ..... Petitioner
                  Through :   Mr. R.K. Wadhwa and Mr. Pradeep
                              Purohit, Advs.

                  versus


      JAGBIR SINGH                         ..... Respondent
                 Through :    Mr. M.P. Singh, Adv. for the State.
                              Mr. Adv. for respondent no.1.
                              (Appearance not given)


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

        1.    Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to
              see the Judgment ?                          Yes
        2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not?      Yes
        3.    Whether the Judgment should be reported in the
              Digest?                                     Yes


                 ORDER

% 21.08.2009

1. The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside

the order dated 23.12.2008, passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in CA No.08/08

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

upholding the judgment dated 03.04.2008 and order on

sentence dated 22.04.2008, by virtue of which, the petitioner

was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period

of six months and also to pay compensation in the sum of

Rs.1.00 lakh to the complainant/Jagbir Singh (respondent

herein).

2. Briefly stating, the facts relevant for disposal of the present

petition are that the respondent (Jagbir Singh) had filed a

criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act, against the

petitioner (Madan Lal), alleging therein that the petitioner

was running a business of supplying building material with his

brother-in-law, Dalbir Singh, under the name and style of M/s

Haryana Building Material Suppliers at Dashrath Puri, New

Delhi. At the request of the respondent (Jagbir Singh), the

petitioner agreed to supply him building material for

construction of his house on credit basis. As per the accounts,

a sum of Rs.57,000/- was finally due and outstanding from

the petitioner‟s side, payable to the respondent/complainant.

3. On 20.11.01, Ramesh the brother of the petitioner along with

three other persons, namely, Mahesh Chand, Pramod Kumar

and Kanhaya Lal came to the shop of respondent and gave

an undertaking to pay the due amount of Rs.57,000/- by

25.01.2002 and in default to pay an additional sum of

Rs.5,000/- as interest on the said amount. All of them signed

an agreement to this effect on 20.11.201. Despite execution

of the said agreement, the outstanding amount was not paid.

Finally, a cheque dated 17.02.2002 bearing number 992361

drawn on Syndicate bank, Hari Nagar, New Delhi, in the sum

of Rs.62,000/- was issued by the petitioner, in discharge of

his liability towards the respondent, but the said cheque on

presentation in the bank was dishonoured for the reason

„Account closed‟. The respondent (Jagbir Singh) issued a legal

notice dated 27.02.2002 which was duly served on the

petitioner, who though sent a reply but failed to pay the

cheque amount.

4. A complaint case was filed by the respondent (Jagbir Singh)

against the petitioner, wherein the petitioner was found guilty

of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo SI for a period of

six months and also to pay compensation in the sum of

Rs.1.00 lakh to the respondent. The appeal filed by the

petitioner was also dismissed and against which the present

revision petition has been filed.

5. Be that as it may, during the pendency of this matter, parties

have arrived at an amicable settlement, by virtue of which,

the petitioner has paid a total sum of Rs.1.30 lakhs to the

respondent (Jagbir Singh). In the case of B.C. Seshadri Vs.

B.N. Suryanarayana Rao reported at (2004) 11 SCC 510,

the Supreme Court allowed the compounding of an offence

under section 138 of the NI Act. It was observed as under:

"3. The appellant before us was convicted by the XIIIth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 20,000 and in default to pay the same, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months.

5. During the pendency of this appeal the parties have settled their dispute which is recorded by this Court by order dated 18-8-2003. Now the appellant seeks for the compounding of the said offence. In view of the provision of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Haritwal v. Alka Gupta1 has held that such a compounding of the offences on the basis of parties settling their dispute is permissible. Since the respondent states that he is willing to compound the offence, we allow the

appeal and direct that the offences be compounded as provided under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881."

6. Similarly in the case of G. Sivarajan Vs. Little Flower

Kuries & Enterprises Ltd. reported at (2004) 11 SCC

400, the Apex Court held as under:

"3. The respondent complainant who is represented through his counsel has filed an affidavit stating that his claim has since been settled and he has no objection if the matter is compounded under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Having perused the judgments and the contents of the affidavit filed by the complainant, we are satisfied that this is a case which could be compounded. The sentence imposed by the two courts below is set aside. We permit the parties to compound the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881."

7. It would also be relevant to reproduce section 147 of the NI

Act, "Offences to be compoundable- Notwithstanding

anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,

every offence punishable under this Act shall be

compoundable." Thus as per section 147 of the NI Act and

the settled position of law enunciated in the case of B.C.

Seshadri (supra) and G. Sivarajan (supra), and applying

the same to the facts of this case, I find that in view of the

settlement and compromise arrived at between the parties,

no purpose would be served in keeping the matter alive, and

the offence under section 138 of the NI Act against the

petitioner, is compounded.