Vatsa Electronics vs Pala Ram And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 1363 P&H

CRR-1585-2019 (O&M)                                               -1-


     (224) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                                                 CRR-1585-2019 (O&M)
                                                 Date of Decision: 09.03.2022


Vatsa Electronics
                                                                 ... Petitioner
                                       Versus
Pala Ram & Anr.
                                                               ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:    Mr. P.K. Hooda, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Surinder Singh Virk, Advocate
            for respondent No.1.

            Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana.
                            ****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The present revision petition has been filed against the order

dated 01.06.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide which

the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 16.12.2015 passed by the learned Sub Divisional

Judicial Magistrate, Samalkha, has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the facts as alleged by the

complainant-respondent No.1 is that he was engaged in the business of

running a milk dairy and was an agriculturist. He also used to take

agricultural land on lease. The accused-petitioner, who was proprietor of

Vatsa Electronics was known to the brother-in-law of respondent

No.1/complainant. On 02.07.2010, the proprietor of accused along with the

1 of 5

CRR-1585-2019 (O&M) -2-

brother-in-law of the complainant, came to the house of the latter and

requested him to lend a sum of Rs.7 lakh to him for business purpose. He

was running an electronics business at Ganaur, District Sonepat. He

promised the complainant to return the borrowed amount within two months.

The complainant considered the request of the accused and gave a sum of

Rs.7 lakh to him. To discharge his debt liability, the accused issued a cheque

bearing No.0204573 dated 27.09.2010 drawn on Oriental Bank of

Commerce, Samalkha Branch for a sum of Rs.7 lakh. The accused requested

the complainant to present the said cheque on 29.09.2010. The complainant

presented the said cheque with his banker Punjab National Bank, Samalkha

Branch on 29.09.2010. However, this cheque was received dishonoured with

the remarks 'Funds Insufficient' and 'Dormant Account' vide memo dated

29.09.2010. The complainant intimated the accused about the dishonour of

the cheque and then the accused requested him to present cheque again in the

bank. The said cheque was again presented on 19.10.2010 but was again

dishonoured with the same remarks vide memo dated 19.10.2010. The

complainant again intimated the accused about this fact and requested the

accused to make payment of the amount borrowed from him but on request of

the accused, he again presented the cheque after two months on 23.12.2010

but unfortunately, the cheque was dishonoured again with the remarks

'Insufficient Funds' and 'Dormant Account'. The complainant informed the

accused who did not pay any heed of his request. Therefore, complainant

served a legal notice upon the accused on 13.01.2011 through registered post.

3. Thereafter, a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881, was filed, where the petitioner-accused was

2 of 5

CRR-1585-2019 (O&M) -3-

summoned to face the trial. The evidence was led and ultimately, he was held

guilty and accordingly, convicted for the offence punishable under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay a compensation of

double the cheque amount.

4. That aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction and order

of sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions

Judge, Panipat, which came to be dismissed on 01.06.2019.

5. Still aggrieved, the present revision petition has been preferred

by the petitioner. During the pendency of the present criminal revision

petition, a compromise was effected between the parties and the respondent-

complainant sworn an affidavit (Annexure A-1) in support of the

compromise. A perusal of the affidavit would reveal that a compromise has

been effected and the complainant is satisfied as he has received his entire

consideration amount/cheque amount and have no objection if the accused-

petitioner is acquitted. It would be relevant to mention here that an

application under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with

Section 320 Cr.P.C. has also been filed seeking compounding of the offence

on account of the fact that a mutual compromise has been effected between

the parties.

6. The learned counsel for the complainant-respondent has

accepted the factum of compromise and has stated that he has no objection if

the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

                                  3 of 5

 CRR-1585-2019 (O&M)                                               -4-

8. The admitted position is that the matter stands settled pursuant to

which an application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

read with Section 320 Cr.P.C. has been filed. This Hon'ble Court in 'Ramesh

Chander Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 245'

held as under:-

"4. As per the provisions of Section 147 of the Act, the

offence under Section 138 is compoundable. Section 147 reads

as under:-

"Offence to be compoundable-

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973(2 of 1974), every offence punishable

under this Act shall be compoundable".

5. The compounding of the offence under Section 138can

be done during the trial of the case as well as by the High Court

or Court of Session while acting in the exercise of its power of

revision under Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code Reference

may be made to Section 320(6) Criminal Procedure Code in this

regard.

6. Further, under Section 320(8) Criminal Procedure

Code the composition of an offence shall have the effect of

acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been

compounded."

9. In view of the above, since, the parties have voluntarily settled

the disputes between themselves, it is a fit case for allowing them to

compound the offence.

                               4 of 5

 CRR-1585-2019 (O&M)                                               -5-

10. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated

01.06.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panipat, and the judgment

of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.12.2015 passed by the learned

Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samalkha, are hereby set aside. The

petitioner is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE

09.03.2022 JITESH

Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No

Whether reportable:- Yes/No

5 of 5