Gauhati High Court

Atiq Ahmed vs Punjab National Bank on 8 May, 2025

                                                                          Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010076322024




                                                                   undefined

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./147/2024

            ATIQ AHMED
            S/O MERAZ UDDIN AHMED
            HOUSE NO.6, NAYANPUR
            BYE LANE NO. 2, GUWAHATI,
            DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM



            VERSUS

            PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
            CIRCLE SASTRA BRANCH, 1ST FLOOR, NILGIRI MANSION, GUWAHATI-
            781005,
            BHANGAGARH, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. C K NATH, MR. AJAY SARMA,MR N J DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PNB, MR. P SENGUPTA ,MR P CHOUDHURY




             Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/350/2024

            ATIQ AHMED
            S/O MERAZ UDDIN AHMED HOUSE NO.6
            NAYANPUR BYE LANE NO. 2
            GUWAHATI
            DIST. KAMRUP (M)
            ASSAM
                                                                       Page No.# 2/3


           VERSUS

           PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
           CIRCLE SASTRA BRANCH
           1ST FLOOR
           NILGIRI MANSION
           GUWAHATI-781005
           BHANGAGARH
           ASSAM


           ------------
           Advocate for : MR. C K NATH
           Advocate for : SC
           PNB appearing for PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK



                                BEFORE
              HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

                                    ORDER

Date : 08.05.2025 Heard Mr. N. J. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Sengupta, the learned counsel for the respondent-Punjab National Bank is present.

The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the Bank as per the direction of this Court, which has been adjusted in the loan account of the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank further submits that the respondent bank is no longer inclined to pursue the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the matter may be closed, taking the same into cognizance.

However, he submits that in view of the guidelines of the Apex Court issued in the case of "Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H" reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663, if the application for compounding is made before the Page No.# 3/3

High Court in revision, such compounding may be allowed subject to the condition that the accused/petitioner pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of cost to the Legal Services Authority.

On this, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for seeking instruction in this regard from the petitioner.

The prayer is allowed.

As the petitioner has paid 20% of the fine amount to the respondent-Bank and as there is a possibility of compromise between the parties, till further orders, the execution of the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the impugned judgment and order shall remain stayed.

Let this case be listed after four weeks.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant