Vishwanath Jha vs State Of Haryana And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 1074 P&H

CRM-M-37149-2018 (O&M) and connected matters                    1

251
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH


                                         Date of Decision:02.03.2022

1.     CRM-M-37149-2018 (O&M)
Vishwanath Jha                                                  ..Petitioner
            Vs.
State of Haryana and another                                  ..Respondents

2.     CRM-M-36910-2018 (O&M)
Vishwanath Jha                                                  ..Petitioner
            Vs.
State of Haryana and another                               ..Respondents

3.     CRM-M-37715-2018 (O&M)
Vishwanath Jha                                                  ..Petitioner
            Vs.
State of Haryana and another                               ..Respondents

4.     CRM-M-37749-2018 (O&M)
Vishwanath Jha                                                  ..Petitioner
            Vs.
State of Haryana and another                               ..Respondents
5.     CRM-M-37747-2018 (O&M)
Vishwanath Jha                                                  ..Petitioner
            Vs.
State of Haryana and another                               ..Respondents
6.     CRM-M-37755-2018 (O&M)
Vishwanath Jha                                                  ..Petitioner
            Vs.
State of Haryana and another                               ..Respondents

7.     CRM-M-37824-2018 (O&M)
Vishwanath Jha                                                  ..Petitioner
            Vs.
State of Haryana and another                               ..Respondents
8.     CRM-M-37831-2018 (O&M)
Vishwanath Jha                                                  ..Petitioner
            Vs.
State of Haryana and another                               ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ

Present:     Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for petitioner.
             Mr. Vishal Malik, DAG, Haryana.
             None for respondent No.2.
                               ...


                                1 of 4
             ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 03:36:34 :::
 CRM-M-37149-2018 (O&M) and connected matters                 2

Manoj Bajaj, J. (Oral)

The petitioner/convict has filed these separate petitions under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 147 Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 seeking leave of this Court for compounding the offence punishable

under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, arising out of

respective complaint Nos.934, 930, 931, 933, 926, 929, 935 and 932 dated

07.07.2014 on the basis of compromise dated 21.08.2018 (Annexure P-5),

with the complainant (respondent No.2).

On 08.10.2018, this Court had passed the following order:

"Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the matter has since been amicably settled and as per settlement, entire payment has been made to the complainant vide cheque/draft, copies of which have been placed on file.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the observations of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Kirpalsingh Pratapsingh Ori. Versus Balvinder Kaur Hardipsing Lobana, 2004, Criminal Law Journal, 3786, in support of its contention that the matter can be compromised at any stage even after dismissal of the revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment to deposit 15% of the cheque amount as per observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, within a period of 10 days.

List on 22.10.2018.

In the meanwhile, the sentence of the petitioner shall remain suspended on his furnishing adequate security bonds to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

Copy of this order be placed on the files of other connected matters."

Thereafter, on 21.11.2018, this Court while noticing the

compliance of the above order, summoned the lower Court record. Finally,

when the above cases were heard on 27.11.2019, learned counsel for the

petitioner referred to the sole ground of compromise to assert that the

necessary compliance required for compounding the offence stands made

and prayed that the petitioner be allowed to compound the offence. The

2 of 4

CRM-M-37149-2018 (O&M) and connected matters 3

prayer was not opposed on behalf of the complainant.

Considering the only stand of the parties relating to

compromise, this Court accepted the prayer for compounding the offence

and announced the petition(s) as allowed, but later while dictating the

judgment, it was noticed that in the subject complaints, conviction of the

petitioner recorded by trial Court through judgment dated 21.04.2016 had

attained finality. Here it is relevant to note that the convict had previously

preferred revision petition(s) before this Court to challenge the appellate

Court's judgment dated 3.10.2017 affirming the trial Court verdict, and the

same were dismissed on 29.05.2018 and further, against this decision, the

respective SLPs filed by convict were also dismissed on 13.08.2018

(Annexure P-4). Strangely, this material fact was not brought to the notice

of this Court at the time of hearing, therefore, on 27.11.2019 itself, the order

allowing the petition(s) was recalled and the cases were ordered to be listed

for re-hearing on 02.12.2019.

Learned counsel for the parties appeared before this Court on

02.12.2019 and on their request, the case was further adjourned to

12.12.2019, however, Mr. Rajesh Lamba, learned counsel for the petitioner

drew the attention of the Court to the Supreme Court decision (Annexure P-

4) and stated that indeed the conviction of the petitioner stands upheld upto

the Apex Court. Thereafter, the matter was not listed because of breakout

of pandemic Covid-19.

Today, during the course of hearing, Mr. Rajesh Lamba,

learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that the conviction of the

petitioner had attained finality by virtue of the order dated 13.08.2018

passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, much before the filing of these

3 of 4

CRM-M-37149-2018 (O&M) and connected matters 4

petition(s) on the basis of compromise. It is also conceded by him that no

application was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court after compromise

between the parties for seeking permission to compound the offence. Thus,

when confronted with the maintainability of the petitions, learned counsel

for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw these petitions

in order to avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

The prayer is accepted.

The petitions are ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn.

Since the prayer for compounding of the offence is not being

pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 15 % of the cheque

amount deposited by the petitioner in compliance of the order dated

08.10.2018 be refunded to the petitioner. It is further directed that the

petitioner shall surrender forthwith before the District Prison, Faridabad to

serve the sentence.

                                                         (MANOJ BAJAJ)
02.03.2022                                                  JUDGE
Jasmine Kaur




               Whether speaking/reasoned               Yes No
               Whether reportable                      Yes No




                                  4 of 4