Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Singh vs Prem Chand Jindal And Anr on 7 August, 2023
CRR-1768-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:101753
109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-1768-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 07.08.2023
Surinder Singh
....Petitioner
versus
Prem Chand Jindal and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present:- Mr. Pallavi Babbar, Advocate for petitioner.
Respondent No.1 in person along with
Mr. Barun Jaswal, Advocate.
Mr. V.S. Mahal, Additional Public Prosecutor, U.T., Chandigarh.
*****
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
CRM-32518-2023
For the reasons stated in application and the same being not opposed by
learned counsel for the complainant who is present in court along with complainant, same
is allowed and delay of 1015 days in filing the revision petition stands condoned.
Main case
Instant Revision petition has been filed by petitioner against theJudgments
dated06.12.2016 and 08.08.2018 passed by learned Courts below whereby petitioner-
accused was held guilty under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short
'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year besides payment
of fine of Rs.5,00,000/-.
2. Brief facts of the case in hand, as recorded bylearned Sessions Judge in
the impugned judgment, arereproduced as under:
2.1. "Briefly stated, facts of the case are that respondent-
complainant filed a complaint u/s 138 of the Act against the appellant-
convict-accused with the allegations that accused fraudulently along with
his accomplices had sold some portion of land to the complainant but later
on came to know that a fraud had been played upon him. Thereafter, to
discharge his legal liability in part, accused issued a cheque No.155734
dated 30.04.2011 in the sum of Rs.5 lakhs in favour of complainant. At that
time, he had assured the complainant the cheque on presentation would be
VANDANA
2023.08.08 10:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment 1 of 3
CRR-1768-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:101753
encashed. However, cheque was returned dishonoured with the remarks
"Funds Insufficient" vide memo dated 13.05.2011. The complainant issued
a legal notice dated 19.05.2011 through registered post on 27.05.2011 to
the accused demanding the payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of
the receipt of the notice. Accused did not make any payment and hence,
complaint u/s 138 of the Act was filed."
3. Notice of motion.
4. On advance service of copy of petition, learned State counsel as well as
learned counsel for respondent No.2 appear and accept notice.
5. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that matter stands
settled as entire cheque amount has been paid to the complainant/respondent No.2 herein.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that parties have
compromised the matter. Per compromise (Annexure A-1), respondent herein
(complainant) does not want to pursue the case any further and has no objection if the
revision petition is accepted and petitioner is acquitted.
7. Respondent No.2 is present in person along with his counsel. On a Court query ,he
maintains that he does not wish to press charges against the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for complainant/respondent No.2 admits the factum of
compromise having been effected between the parties and receipt of entire cheque
amount. He also submits that respondent No.2 has no objection if appeal is accepted and
petitioner is acquitted.He further urges that no useful purpose would be served by
keeping the present proceedings pending.
9. The dispute herein is private in nature and parties have settled their differences and
arrived at an amicable settlement, as aforesaid.Offence committed by the petitioner is
civil in nature and not a crime against society at large. The criminal charges were earlier
pressed by the private respondent no.2 against the petitioner. It is not a case where state is
the prosecutor. Respondents no.2 himself does not now want to press any charges against
the petitioner and in facts, prays that instant petition be allowed or in other words his
complaint against petitioner be dismissed.Parties are known to each other and wish to
now live in congenially in future rather than maintaining hostility occurred due dishonor
VANDANA
2023.08.08 10:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment 2 of 3
CRR-1768-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:101753
of the cheque, resulting in court proceedings ibid. In totality of the circumstance, I am
thus of the view petitionerdeserves to be acquittal.
10. As an upshot of the discussion, and alsofor the grounds stated in the petition and
for mutual peace and future bon homie between the parties, and in the larger interest of
interest, revision petition is accepted. Accordingly, The impugned orders of conviction
and sentence recorded by both Courts below are set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the
charges levelled against him.In case petitioner is in custody, he be released forthwith.
10. Petition is allowed accordingly.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
CRM-32515-2023
Instant application is rendered infructuous since the main revision petition
has been accepted.Disposed of accordingly.
CRM-32514-2023
Application herein is for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the
applicant/petitioner during pendency of present revision petition.
Since the main case is allowed, no further proceedings are warranted.
Instant application is rendered infructuous.
(ARUN MONGA)
JUDGE
07.08.2023
Vandana
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
VANDANA
2023.08.08 10:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment 3 of 3
