Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshal Lal vs M/S Rishi Finance Company And Anr on 11 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049470
CRR-158-2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-158-2010 (O&M)
Reserved on: 01.03.2023
Date of Pronouncement: 11.04.2023
Darshan Lal
...Petitioner (s)
Versus
M/s Rishi Finance Company and another
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:- Mr. Rahul Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
None for respondent no.1.
Mr. Rajat Gauram, DAG, Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Criminal No.300 of 2009 under Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments
Complaint Act, District Kurukshetra decided on 1.6.2009.
Criminal No. 47 of 8.6.2009 before Addl. Sessions Judge, District Kurukshetra
Appeal decided on 12.1.2010.
1. The petitioner, who stands convicted for the commission of offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (NIA) has come up
before this Court under Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, (CrPC).
2. During the pendency of this revision petition, a compromise/settlement has
arrived at between the parties. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the
compromise/settlement as Annexure A-1 and sought quashing of the impugned
order(s), as the matter has been compromised and main revision petition was taken
on board.
3. This court asked the parties to appear before the concerned court and also
asked the said court to give its report as per the format.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049470
4. On 15.2.2023, joint statement of the parties including the complainant was
recorded has there is no objection to quashing of criminal proceedings in the
matter. The report of the concerned Court, in the prescribed format, reads as
follows:
Name of the reporting Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra
Court
Criminal Case no. Complaint No.300/2009 under Section 138 Negotiable
before trial Court Instruments Act.
1. Names of the complainant/ M/s Rishi Finance Co. through
victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) Harbhagwan Chhabra
2. Dates on which the statement(s) of 15.2.2023
the complainant/ victims(s)/
aggrieved persons(s) were recorded
3. Has the identity of the complainant/ Yes
victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) been
verified?
4. Whether all the victims/ all the Yes
aggrieved persons have
compromised the matter?
5. Is there pressure, threat, or coercion No
upon the victim(s)/aggrieved
person(s)/complainant?
6. Names of the accused person(s) Darshan Lal
7. Dates on which the statement(s) of 15.2.2023
the accused persons(s) recorded
8. Whether all the accused have Yes
compromised the matter? If no, then
the names of the accused who have
compromised.
9. Whether proclamation proceedings No
are pending against any accused?
10. Has the police report been filed or No
not?
11. Notice of accusation /Charges have Yes
been framed or not?
12. Sections of statutes invoked in the 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
matter Act
13. Whether the court is satisfied with Yes.
the genuineness of the compromise?
5. The petitioner faced criminal prosecution by the private respondent because
of the dishonor of the cheque in question. Thus, the opposition of the State's
counsel to this compromise is formal.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049470
6. The jurisprudence behind the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is that the
business transactions are to be honoured. The legislative intention is not to make
people suffer incarceration only because their cheques bounced. These proceedings
are to recover the cheque amount by showing teeth of a penal clause.
7. Given the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Damodar S.
Prabhu v Sayed Babalal, (2010) 5 SCC 663, the law is well settled that when the
entire money is paid, then the complainant cannot have any objection to such
compromise, and 15% of the cheque amount is to be paid by the accused to the
concerned State Legal Services Authority.
8. Given above, because of the compromise, this is a fit case where the inherent
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC supported by Section
147 of the NIA is invoked to disrupt the prosecution and quash the proceedings
mentioned above.
9. In Damodar S. Prabhu v Sayed Babalal, (2010) 5 SCC 663, Hon'ble Supreme
Court holds,
[17]. "...Even though the imposition of costs by the
competent court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs
has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. The
competent Court can of course reduce the costs with regard
to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while
recording reasons in writing for such variance."
10. The amount in question is rupees seventy six thousand (Rs.76,000). The 15% of
Rs. 76,000/- comes to be Rs. 11,400/-) and this compounding is subject to the
petitioner depositing the 15% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.11,400/-, on or before
15.05.2023,with the concerned wing of High Court Legal Aid. Failing which this
entire order, including compounding, shall automatically stand recalled under
Section 362 and Section 482 CrPC, and this petition shall be posted for hearing on
merits. However, in extraordinary circumstances, the petitioner may approach this
Court for an extension of time to deposit the compounding fee. Petitioner to file the
proof of deposit before the trial Court within the aforesaid time.
11. Given above, the present revision petition is allowed. Consequently, the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence and all consequent proceedings are
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049470
set aside qua the petitioner(s), and the petitioner would also stand acquitted of all
the offences captioned above. All pending applications are closed.
Petition allowed in the terms mentioned above. All pending application(s), if any,
stand closed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
April 11, 2023
AK
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049470
4 of 4
