Ashok Kumar vs Gorav Monga
2022 Latest Caselaw 1680 P&H

CRR-1301-2020 (O&M)                                -1-

231          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                                          CRR-1301-2020 (O&M)
                                          Decided on: 15th March, 2022
Ashok Kumar
                                                                    Petitioner
                                     Versus
Gorav Monga
                                                                 Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:     Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Parneet Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

                                         ****

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (Oral):

1. Due to COVID-19 situation, the Court is convened through

video conference.

2. This criminal revision is filed aggrieved of conviction under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the

Act') and upholding of conviction and sentence in appeal. The

petitioner was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment

and to pay fine of rupees two thousand and in default of payment of fine,

simple imprisonment for one month.

3. The brief facts are that petitioner issued a cheque of rupees two

lakh to the complainant. On presentation the cheque was dishonored, after

serving notice complaint was filed. After dismissal of the appeal, the parties

compromised the matter.

4. This Court taking note of the compromise, directed the parties

to get their statement recorded before the trial Court.

                                1 of 3

 CRR-1301-2020 (O&M)                                -2-

5. In the meantime, petitioner deposited fifteen percent of the

cheque amount as per the decision of judgment of the Supreme Court in

Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., 2010(5) SCC 663.

6. The report dated 22nd February, 2022 received states that

compromise is valid, genuine, voluntary and without any pressure, coercion

or undue influence.

7. In K.M. Ibrahim v. K.P. Mohammed and another, (2010) 1,

SCC 798, Supreme Court held as under:-

"8. The golden thread in all these decisions is that once a

person is allowed to compound a case as provided for under

Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the conviction

under Section 138 of the said Act should also be set aside. In

the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak (supra), the issue was raised

and after taking note of the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.,

this Court held that since the matter had been compromised

between the parties and payments hadbeen made in full and

final settlement of the dues of the Bank, the appeal deserved to

be allowed and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

Consequently, the order of conviction and sentence recorded

by all the courts were set aside and the appellant was

acquitted of the charge leveled against him."

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into

consideration the fact that the parties have settled their dispute. The offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Act is compounded, accordingly, the

impugned judgments and orders passed by the Courts below are set aside.

                                2 of 3

 CRR-1301-2020 (O&M)                                    -3-

The complaint under Section 138 of the Act is dismissed and the petitioner

is acquitted of the notice of accusation served upon him.

9. The revision petition is disposed of.

                                                  [AVNEESH JHINGAN]
                                                       JUDGE
15th March, 2022
Parveen Sharma
             1. Whether speaking/ reasoned               :     Yes /No
             2. Whether reportable                       :     Yes /No




                                     3 of 3