Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Kumar vs Naro And Another on 13 July, 2022
CRR-132-2021
[1]
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-132-2021 (O & M)
Judgment reserved on:12.07.2022
Date of Decision: 13.07.2022
Ram Kumar
.....Petitioner
Versus
Naro and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present: Ms. Shelja Sharma, Advocate for
the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Jaswal, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Ashok Singh Chaudhary, Addl. A. G. Haryana.
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.
In the complaint filed under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short `the Act') by
complainant-respondent No.1, the petitioner was convicted
and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 22.05.2018
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat,
as under:-
Under Sentence
Section
138 Simple imprisonment for a period of one
N.I.Act year and to pay fine of Rs.4, 75,000/-, which
includes interest @ 6% per annum on the
cheque amount, Rs.8,000/- litigation
expenses and Rs.5,000/- court fine. Out of
the total amount, Rs.4,70,000/- to be paid
to the complainant as compensation.
1 of 7
CRR-132-2021
[2]
The appeal against the said judgment and order, was
dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat,
on 08.02.2021.
Still aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present
revision petition.
Vide order dated 19.02.2021 passed by this Court,
sentence of the petitioner was suspended, but after noticing
the fact that despite availing the number of opportunities, he
was not making the payment of the remaining amount, the
aforesaid order dated 19.02.2021 was recalled.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
during the pendency of the present petition, a compromise
was arrived at between the parties; that in pursuance thereof,
the petitioner had already paid the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-,
out of total compensation of Rs.4,70,000/-, to respondent
No.1, and that the former has also paid the remaining amount
of Rs.2,70,000/- to the latter through demand draft/banker's
cheque.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that
the matter has been compromised between the parties. He also
does not dispute the factum of receiving the entire amount of
Rs.4,70,000/- from the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
learned counsel for respondent No.1-complainant, are ad-idem
and submit that as the matter stands compromised, necessary
2 of 7
CRR-132-2021
[3]
permission may be granted to the parties to compound the
offence under Section 138 N.I.Act; the impugned judgments
and orders passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court
may be set aside and the petitioner may be acquitted of the
charge(s) framed against him.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner, in order to pay the settlement
amount to the complainant, has exhausted his entire
resources, and, thus, he is not in a position to deposit the
costs in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., (2010)5 SCC
663. She, thus, contends that in view of the peculiar facts of
the present case, wherein the complainant has accepted the
settled amount, the imposition of costs in terms of the
judgment in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra) may be waived
off.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant
does not have any objection to the aforesaid prayer made by
the counsel for the petitioner.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh
State Legal Services Authority Vs. Prateek Jain & Anr.,
(2014)10 SCC 690, held that it would be for the parties,
particularly the accused person, to make out a plausible case
for the waiver/reduction of the costs and to convince the
concerned Court about the same. It was held as under:-
3 of 7
CRR-132-2021
[4]
"....Having regard thereto, we are of the
opinion that even when a case is decided in
Lok Adalat, the requirement of following the
guidelines contained in Damodar S. Prabhu
(supra) should normally not be dispensed with.
However, if there is a special/specific reason to
deviate therefrom, the Court is not remediless
as Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) itself has given
discretion to the concerned Court to reduce
the costs with regard to specific facts and
circumstances of the case, while recording
reasons in writing about such variance.
Therefore, in those matters where the case has
to be decided/settled in the Lok Adalat, if the
Court finds that it is a result of positive
attitude of the parties, in such appropriate
cases, the Court can always reduce the costs
by imposing minimal costs or even waive the
same. For that, it would be for the parties,
particularly the accused person, to make out a
plausible case for the waiver/reduction of
costs and to convince the concerned Court
about the same. This course of action,
according to us, would strike a balance
between the two competing but equally
4 of 7
CRR-132-2021
[5]
important interests, namely, achieving the
objectives delineated in Damodar S. Prabhu
(supra) on the one hand and the public
interest which is sought to be achieved by
encouraging settlements/resolution of case
through Lok Adalats."
Learned counsel for the petitioner apart from
heavily relying upon the said judgment, relies upon the order
dated 06.08.2019 passed in Rajendra Vs. Nand Lal, 2020(1)
RCR (Crl.) 166, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, has held as
under:-
"5. Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submitted that in view of the
compromise arrived at between the parties, the
conviction of the appellant under Section 138 of
N.I. Act is to be set aside and the appellant is
entitled to an acquittal. The learned counsel
for the appellant has drawn our attention to
the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H.,
(2010) 5 SCC 663 and submitted that in cases
arising under Section 138, N.I. Act where the
parties are compromising the matter this
Court has issued the guidelines as to the levy
of costs depending upon stage of the
compromise arrived at between the parties.
5 of 7
CRR-132-2021
[6]
The learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that in the special facts and
circumstances of the case, the Court can waive
the costs to be levied. As discussed earlier, in
the present case, the appellant, accused was
acquitted by the Trial Court inter alia on the
ground that the respondent had not
established that there was a legally enforceable
debt. Since the appellant was convicted only in
the High Court, the appellant had substantial
ground to raise in the criminal appeal filed
before this Court. Because of the reversal of
the acquittal by the High Court and the
conviction recorded only by the High Court,
the appellant had opportunity of negotiating
for settlement in this Court after filing the
appeal. In such facts and circumstances of the
case, this is not a case where cost is to be
imposed, as per the guidelines laid down by
this Court as per the judgment reported in
(2010) 5 SCC 663 (supra)."
In view of the above, in the present case, the
complainant does not have any objection to accept the settled
amount and further he is ready to forego the costs to be
6 of 7
CRR-132-2021
[7]
imposed in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra).
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the fact that the parties have settled
their dispute(s) by way of the compromise, coupled with the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prateek Jain's case
(supra) and keeping in view the specific/special reasons, this
Court deviates from the conditions laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra) and grants
permission to the parties to compound the offence punishable
under Section 138 N.I.Act. Accordingly, the impugned
judgments and orders passed by the Courts below are set
aside. The complaint under Section 138 N.I.Act is dismissed
and the petitioner is acquitted of the notice(s) of accusation
served upon him. The petitioner be released forthwith in this
case, if not required in any other case.
Disposed of in the aforementioned terms.
13.07.2022 (Hanaresh Singh Gill)
parveen kumar Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
