Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avi Kalra vs Jaspreet Kaur And Anr on 21 November, 2022
-1-
CRM-43835 of 2022 in/and
CRR-2280 of 2022 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-43835 of 2022 in/and
CRR-2280 of 2022 (O&M)
Reserved on: -16.11.2022
Date of pronouncement: -21.11.2022
Avi Kalra
......Petitioner
vs.
Jaspreet Kaur and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Argued by: -
Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anhul Singh, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
Petitioner-Avi Kalra has filed the instant revision petition
assailing judgment and order dated 27.08.2019 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, whereby he has been convicted and
sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for
short 'the Act') for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay
compensation equivalent to the cheque amount along with simple interest
@ 9% per annum as also the judgment dated 19.09.2022 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby appeal of the petitioner
1 of 6
CRM-43835 of 2022 in/and
CRR-2280 of 2022 (O&M)
against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
27.08.2019 has been dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged by
respondent No.1 against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner being in
dire need of money had approached respondent No.1-complainant through
her husband as the husband of complainant was previously known to the
petitioner because of one sale/purchase of property and had requested and
obtained friendly loan to the tune of `3,00,000/- in the beginning of
February, 2017 agreeing to return the same after lapse of one and half
month and respondent No.1 advanced the above said amount of
`3,00,000/- to the petitioner and in order to discharge his legal liability,
petitioner issued three cheques in favour of respondent No.1 bearing
No.000071 dated 14.03.2017 amounting to `1,00,000/-; cheque bearing
No.000072 dated 14.03.2017 amounting to `1,00,000/- and cheque
bearing No.000073 dated 14.03.2017 amounting to `1,00,000/-. After
presentment of the said cheques, same were returned to respondent No.1
with the memo dated 15.03.2017 with the remarks "Insufficient Funds".
Thereafter, respondent No.1-complainant had got issued a legal notice
dated 28.03.2017 to the petitioner demanding the amount of the cheques
which was duly served and was not received back. In spite of the notice,
petitioner failed to make the payment. Hence, complaint under Section
138 of the Act was instituted.
After hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence on
record, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, vide judgment of
2 of 6
CRM-43835 of 2022 in/and
CRR-2280 of 2022 (O&M)
conviction and order of sentence dated 27.08.2019 convicted and
sentenced the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay compensation equivalent
to `3,00,000/- along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of
issuance of cheque till the final realization from the date of issuance of
cheque and in case of default of payment of compensation to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
The aforesaid judgment and order dated 27.08.2019 were
challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Patiala, who, vide judgment dated 19.09.2022, dismissed
the same finding it without any merit.
Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed the instant revision
petition with a prayer that both the aforesaid judgments passed by the
Courts below be set aside and the petitioner may be acquitted of the
charges levelled against him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the
pendency of the instant revision petition before this Court, the matter got
compromised between the parties for an amount of `3,40,000/- and the
petitioner has paid the entire settled amount to respondent No.1 and
receipt dated 14.10.2022 issued by husband of respondent No.1 is at
Annexure P-1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment in
the case of Tilak Kataria vs. State of Haryana and another, 2021 (3)
RCR (Criminal) 404, wherein, after considering various judgments of the
3 of 6
CRM-43835 of 2022 in/and
CRR-2280 of 2022 (O&M)
Apex Court, it has been held that when the complainant does not have any
objection, the proceedings should come to an end.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramgopal and another vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 322, has held that in
non-compoundable cases of pre-dominantly private nature, even if
compromise is reached after conviction, the proceedings can be quashed
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Further, the compromise in the present case is
found to be fully covered in consonance of judgments and directions
issued by the Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab,
2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and
another, 2012(4) RCR (Crl.) 543.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.T. Sivaperumal vs.
Mohammed Hyath (D) by LRs, decided on 27.03.2017, has held that once
the settlement between the parties has been arrived at, the conviction can
also be set aside and the litigation too. Similar view has been taken by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jagmohan Vs. Sandeep
Aggarwal and another, 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 86.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 does not dispute the
factum of the compromise effected between the parties. He has produced
the affidavit of Harjinder Singh, Special Power of Attorney holder of
respondent No.1-Jaspreet Kaur, dated 14.11.2022, according to which the
dispute has been settled and he has received the amount of `3,40,000/-
from the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
4 of 6
CRM-43835 of 2022 in/and
CRR-2280 of 2022 (O&M)
respondent No.1, are ad-idem and submit that as the matter stands
compromised, CRM-43835 of 2022 filed under Section 320 Cr.P.C. read
with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for compounding the offence under Section 138
of the Act filed by the petitioner may be allowed and permission may be
granted to the parties to compound the offence under Section 138 of the
Act in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H, 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 851;
the impugned judgments and order passed by the learned trial Court and
the learned Appellate Court may be set aside and the petitioner be
acquitted of the charge.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
In the present case, the cheque amount is `3,00,000/-. In view of
the law laid down in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra), compounding of
the present offence can be allowed provided the petitioner-accused pays
15% of the cheque amount by way of costs. On calculation, 15% of the
cheque amount comes to be `45,000/-. As noticed above, the parties have
settled the dispute by way of compromise. Thus, this Court grants
permission to compound the offence punishable under Section 138 NI
Act.
In view of the above, the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 27.08.2019 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Patiala, and the judgment dated 19.09.2022 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, are set aside; the
5 of 6
CRM-43835 of 2022 in/and
CRR-2280 of 2022 (O&M)
complaint under Section 138 of the Act stands dismissed and the
petitioner stands acquitted of the charge, subject to his depositing the
costs of `45,000/- with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, in view
of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S.
Prabhu's case (supra), within 15 days from the receipt of the certified
copy of this order. The present petition is allowed in the aforementioned
terms. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms
and conditions of the compromise.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of in view of the
abovesaid judgment.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
21.11.2022 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
6 of 6
