Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Saini vs Prahlad Through Lr And Anr on 15 December, 2022
CRR No. 751 of 2020 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 751 of 2020 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.12.2022
Manjit Saini ...Petitioner
Versus
Prahlad through LRs and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present:- Mr. Satya Dev Bansal, Advocate and
Mr. Jeevan Gautam, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhisham Kumar, Advocate
for respondent No. 1.
None for respondent No. 2/U.T., Chandigarh.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)
By way of the present revision petition, the petitioner has laid
challenge to the judgment of conviction dated 23.08.2017 and order of
sentence of the even date, vide which the petitioner was convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (for short 'N. I. Act') and was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a compensation of
Rs. 4,00,000/- to complainant/respondent No. 1; as well as for setting aside
the judgment dated 04.03.2020, passed by the lower appellate Court, vide
which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
It is worth noticing that on 22.12.2020, noticing the fact that the
petitioner is a 62 years old lady and the matter has been amicably settled
between the parties, her sentence was suspended. Thereafter, on 29.11.2022,
the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation
1 of 3
Centre of this Court for recording of their statement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the affidavits
of Raj Rani, Mukesh Kumar, Mandeep Kumar and Rohit Kumar, the legal
heirs of original complainant Prahlad, to submit that the respondents have
acknowledged that the matter stands amicably settled.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sube Singh
and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal)
102, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that even after the
conviction, if the parties have settled the dispute amicably and have decided
to live in peace and harmony, this Court, in exercise of powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C., can compound the offence. Accordingly, the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court was set aside and it
was directed that the appeal, pending before the lower appellate Court, would
be rendered infructuous.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a
judgment rendered in K. Subramanian vs. R. Rajathi Rep. By P.O.P.
Kaliappan, 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 184, whereby, on the basis of the
compromise entered into between the parties, Hon'ble Supreme Court has set
aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Courts
below and the accused was acquitted of the charge, framed against him under
Section 138 of the N. I. Act.
Learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed the factual
position and submitted that the respondents have no objection if the present
revision petition is allowed.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, considering the
aforesaid facts and circumstances and also in view of the aforesaid judgments
2 of 3
rendered in Sube Singh's case and K. Subramanian's case (supra), the
present petition is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction dated
23.08.2017 and order of sentence of the even date, passed by the trial Court,
as well as judgment dated 04.03.2020, passed by the lower appellate Court
are set aside. The petitioner/accused is acquitted of the charge framed against
him.
Bail/surety bonds be discharged accordingly.
15.12.2022 (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
