Punjab-Haryana High Court
Taar Singh vs Yashpal on 2 March, 2022
CRR-3031-2019 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
228
CRR-3031-2019 (O&M)
Decided on : 02.03.2022
Taar Singh
. . . Petitioner
Versus
Yashpal
. . . Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
(Through Video Conferencing)
PRESENT: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
This is a criminal revision in which the challenge is to the
judgment dated 03.04.2017 vide which the Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Sangrur has convicted the present petitioner under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and had sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay
compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant.
Challenge is also to the judgment dated 21.09.2019 vide
which the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that the respondent had filed a
complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the dishonor of a cheque dated
25.01.2015 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- which was returned vide memo
1 of 10
dated 04.04.2015 with remarks "insufficient funds". Thereafter, a legal
notice was issued and when no payment was made in spite of the
issuance of legal notice, a complaint under Section 138 of the Act was
filed. The complainant was examined as CW-1 and he had duly proved
on record the original cheque Ex. C-1, memo Ex. C-2, legal notice Ex.
C-3 and postal receipt Ex. C-4 and returned registered envelop Ex. C-5.
After considering the documents and the evidence on record, the
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sangrur convicted the petitioner under
Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him as has been mentioned
hereinabove. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, after
reconsidering entire matter, dismissed the appeal filed by the present
petitioner and thus, upheld the sentence and the conviction of the
petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the respondent have stated that the matter has been
compromised after passing of the judgment of conviction by the
appellate Court and had moved an application bearing No. CRM-35433-
2019 for compounding of the offence. Reliance has been placed upon
the compromise dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure P-1). The said
compromise is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Taar Singh son of Jit Singh, resident of Quarter No.193,
SLIET Longowal, Sangrur.
2. Yashpal Jindal son of Madan Lal, resident of Street No.9,
Kishan Bagh Colony, Sangrur.
That party No.1 had filed an appeal No.RA/207/2017
before the Court of Additional Sessions Court, Sangrur which
2 of 10
has been decided on 21.02.2019.Now in context with the said
matter Party No.1 has effected compromise with party No.2
with the intervention of the respectables and as per the same,
now there is no dispute with relation to the monetary
transactions. Both the sides will not raise any issue against
each other while filing legal proceedings. With reference to
the abovesaid case if there is any other court case pending
between the parties before any court both the parties would
be bound to withdraw the same.
This Compromise has been written so that it can come
into play at the time of the relevant need.
Dated 25.10.2019
Party No.1 Taar Singh son of Jit Singh, resident of
Quarter No. 193, SLIET Longowal, Sangrur.
Party No.2 Yashpal Jindal son of Madan Lal, resident
of Street No.9, Kishan Bagh Colony, Sangrur.
Witness: Witness
Harjinder Singh son of Rahul Jindal son of
Shri Maan Singh Yashpal Jindal,
Resident of Peerkot, resident of Kishanpura
District Bathinda Basti, Sangrur
TRUE TRANSLATED TYPED COPY
ADVOCATE"
A perusal of the said compromise would show that the matter
has been settled and there is no dispute left between the petitioner and the
respondent with respect to the money transactions.
Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent have
submitted that the said compromise is genuine, bonafide and without any
influence or undue pressure and have jointly submitted that the present
petition be allowed and the impugned judgments be set aside.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
3 of 10
has perused the paperbook.
The record of the present case would clearly show that the
compromise had been effected between the parties and the said compromise
has been reiterated by both the counsel during the course of arguments. The
matter seems to have been finally settled and the said compromise will bring
peace and harmony between the petitioner and the respondent.
The Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-17272-2015
dated 28.01.2016 titled as Ram Parkash and others Vs. State of Punjab
and othres, has allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. under similar
circumstances. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:
"Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC is
for quashing of the FIR No.225, dated 24.08.2005 (Annexure P-
1) under Sections 323, 324, 452, 506, 148 and 149
IPC(subsequently added Section 308 and 336 IPC), registered
at Police Station Sadar Nawanshahar, District-Nawanshahar,
on the basis of compromise dated 06.02.2015(Annexure P-4)
and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom
including the judgment of conviction and order of sentence,
both dated 25.09.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions
Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, whereby the accused-
petitioners, were convicted and sentenced...
xxx--xxx--xxx
Quashing of the aforesaid FIR and setting aside of the
impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 25.09.2013
passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat
Singh Nagar, is sought on the basis of compromise dated
06.02.2015 (Annexure P4), entered into between the parties
during the pendency of the appeal before this Court.
4 of 10
xxx--xxx--xxx
This Court in the case of Sube Singh and another
Versus State of Haryana and another 2013(4) RCR
(Criminal) 102 has considered the compounding of offences at
the appellate stage and has observed that even when appeal
against the conviction is pending before the Sessions Court and
parties entered into a compromise, the High Court is vested
unparallel power under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash criminal
proceedings at any stage so as to secure the ends of justice and
has observed as under:-
"15. The refusal to invoke power under Section
320 CrPC, however, does not debar the High Court from
resorting to its inherent power under Section 482
Criminal Procedure Code and pass an appropriate order
so as to secure the ends of justice.
1. As regards the doubt expressed by the learned
Single Judge whether the inherent power under
Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash
the criminal proceedings on the basis of
compromise entered into between the parties can
be invoked even if the accused has been held
guilty and convicted by the trial Court, we find
that in Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of
Madhya Pradesh & Anr., 2008(2) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 910 : (2008)5 SCC 794, the
unfortunate matrimonial dispute was settled after
the appellant (husband) had been convicted under
Section 498A Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
18 months' imprisonment and his appeal was
pending before the first appellate court. The Apex
Court quashed the criminal proceedings keeping
in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case and in the interest of justice observing
that "continuation of criminal proceedings would
5 of 10
be an abuse of the process of law" and also by
invoking its power under Article 142 of the
Constitution. Since the High Court does not
possess any power akin to the one under Article
142 of the Constitution, the cited decision cannot
be construed to have vested the High Court with
such like unparallel power.
17. The magnitude of inherent jurisdiction
exercisable by the High Court under Section 482
Criminal Procedure Code with a view to prevent
the abuse of law or to secure the ends of justice,
however, is wide enough to include its power to
quash the proceedings in relation to not only the
non compoundable offences notwithstanding the
bar under Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code
but such a power, in our considered view, is
exercisable at any stage save that there is no
express bar and invoking of such power is fully
justified on facts and circumstances of the case.
18. xxx xxx
19. xxx xxx
20. xxx xxx
21. In the light of these peculiar facts and
circumstances where not only the parties but their
close relatives (including daughter and son-in-
law of respondent No.2) have also supported the
amicable settlement, we are of the considered
view that the negation of the compromise would
disharmonize the relationship and cause a
permanent rift amongst the family members who
are living together as a joint family. Non-
acceptance of the compromise would also lead to
denial of complete justice which is the very
essence of our justice delivery system. Since there
6 of 10
is no statutory embargo against invoking of power
under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code after
conviction of an accused by the trial Court and
during pendency of appeal against such
conviction, it appears to be a fit case to invoke the
inherent jurisdiction and strike down the
proceedings subject to certain safeguards.
22. Consequently and for the reasons
afore-stated, we allow this petition and set aside
the judgement and order dated 16.03.2009 passed
in Criminal Case No. 425-1 of 2000 of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, on the basis of
compromise dated 08.08.2011 arrived at between
them and their step-mother respondent No.2 (Smt.
Reshma Devi) w/o late Rajmal qua the petitioners
only. As a necessary corollary, the criminal
complaint filed by respondent No.2 is dismissed
qua the petitioners on the basis of above-stated
compromise. Resultantly, the appeal preferred by
the petitioners against the above-mentioned order
dated 16.03.2009 would be rendered infructuous
and shall be so declared by the first Appellate
Court at Hisar."
Similarly, in the case of Baghel Singh Versus State of
Punjab 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 578, whereby the accused was
convicted under Section 326 IPC and was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two years, the parties entered into
compromise during the pendency of the appeal. This Court
while relying upon the judgment of Lal Chand Versus State of
Haryana, 2009 (5) RCR (Criminal) 838 and Chhota Singh
Versus State of Punjab 1997(2) RCR (Criminal) 392 allowed
the compounding of offence in respect of offence under Section
326 IPC at the appellate stage with the observation that it will
be a starting point in maintaining peace between the parties,
7 of 10
such offence can be compounded.
XXX--XXX--XXX
Accordingly, FIR No.225, dated 24.08.2005 (Annexure
P-1) under Sections 323, 324, 452, 506, 148 and 149
IPC(subsequently added Section 308 and 336 IPC), registered
at Police Station Sadar Nawanshahar, District-Nawanshahar
and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the
accused-petitioners, are quashed, on the basis of compromise
dated 06.02.2015 (Annexure P-4), subject to payment of costs
of Rs.25,000/-, to be deposited with the Punjab State Legal
Services Authority, Chandigarh.
Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, both dated 25.09.2013 passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, are set aside
subject to payment of cost."
This Court in a judgment dated 09.03.2017 passed in CRR
no.390 of 2017 titled as "Kuldeep Singh vs. Vijay Kumar and
another" has held as under:-
"Reliance can be placed on Kaushalya Devi Massand vs.
Roopkishore Khore, 2011 (2) RCR (Criminal) 298 and
Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal, AIR 2010 (SC) 1097.
The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in terms of Section
401 Cr.P.C. would result in bringing about ends of justice
between the parties in the event of finding that the compromise
is genuine, bonafide and free from any undue influence.
The compromise in question would serve as a everlasting
tool in favour of the parties for which indulgence can be given
by this Court. The revisional exercise would also be in
consonance with the spirit of Section 147 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
The principle as laid down in Damodar S. Prabhu vs.
Sayed Babalal, AIR 2010 (SC) 1097, would be squarely
fortified if the compromise in question is allowed to be effected
8 of 10
between the parties with leave of the Court.
In view of aforesaid, impugned judgment dated
19.01.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar
Sahib vide which conviction and sentence of the petitioner was
upheld stands quashed.
The revision petition is allowed subject to deposit of 15%
of the cheque amount as per ratio laid down in Damodar S.
Prabhu's case (supra) to State Legal Services Authority, failing
which this order will be of no consequence. Necessary
consequences to follow."
Reliance in the abovesaid judgment was also placed upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's
case (supra) and thus, as per settled law, this Court has the power to set
aside the judgment of conviction against the petitioner on the basis of a
valid compromise. The compromise in the present case is genuine and
valid.
Keeping in view the fact that the present matter has been
compromised and the compromise is genuine and bona fide, the present
revision petition is allowed and impugned judgment and order of sentence
dated 03.04.2017 as well as the impugned order dated 21.09.2019 are set
aside in view of the compromise and the petitioner and respondent are
permitted to compound the offence. The same is however, subject to the
petitioner depositing 15% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.30,000/-
(2,00,000*15/100) with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority within a
period of one month from today
However, it is made clear that in case, the said amount is not
deposited within the stipulated period, then the present petition would be
9 of 10
deemed to have been dismissed.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand
disposed of, in view of the abovesaid order.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
March 2nd, 2022
Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
10 of 10
