Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amul Gabrani And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Another on 8 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:102729
2023:PHHC:102729
CRM-M-8098-2019
CRM-M-8269-2019 -1-
203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-8098-2019
Amul Gabrani and others ...... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ......... Respondents
CRM-M-8269-2019
Amul Gabrani and others ...... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ......... Respondents
Date of Decision: 08.08.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
Present : Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate, and
Ms. Seemantika Jindal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. K.K.Chahal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana,
for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Satyaveer Singhal, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
*****
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (ORAL)
1. This common judgment shall dispose of two petitions, i.e.
CRM-M-8098-2019 and CRM-M-8269-2019 because both the cases are
between the same parties and arising from different but similar orders passed
by the same court.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:102729
2023:PHHC:102729
CRM-M-8098-2019
2. The prayers in these petitions are for quashing of the Complaint
Case bearing No.CC Nos.762 and 764 of 2016 dated 04.10.2013 titled as
'M/s Century Crane Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s Tecpro Systems Limited and
others'; and quashing of the order dated 05.01.2019 in the said complaint
cases, wherein process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
has been initiated against the petitioners No.1, 2, 4 and 5; and all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
3. Reply by way of affidavit of Adarsh Deep Singh, HPS,
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Old Faridabad, has been filed on behalf
of the respondent-State in CRM-M-8269-2019. The same is taken on
record.
4. The main facts, as involved in these petitions, are that the
petitioners had issued cheque bearing No.126184 dated 24.06.2013 for an
amount of Rs.9,45,926/- involved in CRM-M-8098-2019 and cheque
bearing No.126183 dated 14.07.2013 for an amount of Rs.14,94,227/-
involved in CRM-M-8269-2019. The said cheques having been defaulted,
respondent No.2/complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. On entering appearance, the petitioners
had offered to make the payment of the cheques amounts involved in both
the complaints. However, at that stage, respondent No.2/complainant had
not agreed for getting the amounts of cheques and insisted for the trial of the
petitioner. But subsequently an out of the Court settlement is stated to have
been arrived at between the parties under which, the petitioners have paid
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:102729
2023:PHHC:102729
CRM-M-8098-2019
the entire amount of both the cheques through demand drafts, though there
were certain other terms in the settlement, which were not fulfilled by the
petitioners. When the matter was brought to the notice of the Trial Court,
then the Trial Court observed that the said Court was not meant for
enforcement of all the terms of the out of Court compromise, rather, being a
Special Court relating to trial under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the
Court was dealing only with the aspect of the cheques default. Since, the
amount of the cheques had, undisputedly, been paid to the complainant,
therefore, the petitioners had moved separate applications for compounding
of the matter. The said applications have been allowed by the Trial Court,
although, by awarding compensation to the extent of Rs.4,50,000/-, along
with cost of Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses, in the case involved in CRM-
M-8269-2019 and Rs.3,00,000/-, along with cost of Rs.25,000/- as litigation
expenses, in the case involved in CRM-M-8098-2019. However, the
compounding was still made subject to actual payment of the compensation
amounts awarded by the Trial Court. But, thereafter, the petitioners stopped
appearing before the Trial Court; once again. Accordingly, the proceedings
under Section 82 Cr.P.C were also initiated against the petitioners by
cancelling the bail of petitioners No.1, 2, 4 and 5. The petitioners had
challenged the said orders in revision before the Court of Sessions Judge,
Faridabad. However, that revision was also dismissed by the lower
revisional Court. Accordingly, the present petitions have been filed
challenging the orders of the Trial Court qua granting of the compensation
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:102729
2023:PHHC:102729
CRM-M-8098-2019
amounts, initiation of the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C, as well as,
the order passed by the revisional Court.
5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the parties,
on instructions from their respective parties, have arrived at a settlement to
the effect that since the cumulative amount of both the cheques was about
Rs.25,00,000/-, which already stood paid much earlier; therefore, the amount
of compensation, as awarded by the Trial Court, could be reduced to a lump
sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the cheques involved in both the cases.
However, the litigation cost, as awarded by the Trial Court, can be retained.
6. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Courts below regarding
the compensation amount and the litigation expenses are modified in the
above-said terms. Respondent No.2/complainant is held entitled to a lump
sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as cumulative compensation qua both the
cheques involved in both the petitions. However, respondent
No.2/complainant is held entitled to the litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-
separately in each case.
7. Since, the main case itself is allowed by the order of this Court,
therefore, the petitioners would not be required for any further proceedings
before the Trial Court. A coercive mechanism as prescribed under the law is
meant to ensure that the person appears before the Trial Court to face the
proceedings under the law and to receive the orders as the Court may pass
against him. In the present case, since the entire dispute has been settled
between the parties, therefore, no further proceedings before the Court
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:102729
2023:PHHC:102729
CRM-M-8098-2019
below are required in the main case. Therefore, it would not be unjustified
to set aside even the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C., which were
initiated against the petitioners.
8. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners under Section 82
Cr.P.C. and any order consequent thereupon are also quashed.
7. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and all the orders
passed by the Court below are modified in the above-said terms. However,
the petitioners are directed to make the payment of an amount of
Rs.1,50,000/-, as ordered above, through a demand draft in the name of
respondent No.2/complainant on or before 31.08.2023.
(RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
JUDGE
08.08.2023
adhikari
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:102729
5 of 5
