Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh vs Varinder Kumar on 24 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:112034
2023:PHHC:112034
CRR-840-2023 (O& M) ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-840-2023 (O& M)
Date of decision: 24.08.2023
Satnam Singh .... Petitioner
V/s
Varinder Kumar ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Pankaj Garg, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Nitish, Advocate,
for Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate, for the respondent.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The present revision petition has been filed against the
judgment dated 04.07.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mansa vide which
the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 29.08.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Mansa, has been dismissed.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the accused-petitioner was
a Government employee. The accused/petitioner assured the
complainant/respondent that he would get his son-Rishi Kant employed in
Government job and demanded Rs.1,00,000/-. As the accused was known to
the complainant, he paid Rs.1,00,000/- to him (accused). But accused did not
get his son employed in the Government job. When, the complainant
demanded Rs.1,00,000/-, the accused in order to discharge his legal liability
issued a cheque bearing No.823425 dated 16.03.2017 for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Branch Sardulgarh from his
account No.55108106565. The complainant presented the aforesaid cheque
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:112034
2023:PHHC:112034
CRR-840-2023 (O& M) ::2::
in the State Bank of India, ADB, Mansa for encashment but the same was
returned on 17.03.2017 with remarks 'funds insufficient'. The complainant
got issued a legal notice to the accused on 12.04.2017. But neither was any
reply filed by the accused to the aforesaid legal notice nor was any payment
made.
3. Thereafter, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, was filed, where the petitioner-accused was
summoned to face the trial. The evidence was led and ultimately, he was
held guilty and accordingly, convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years and to pay fine of
Rs.10,000/- which was converted into compensation payable to the
complainant.
4. Aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge,
Mansa, which came to be dismissed on 04.07.2022.
5. Still aggrieved, the present revision petition has been preferred
by the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to a
compromise by way of an affidavit of the respondent-Varinder Kumar
submits that the matter has been settled amicably to the entire satisfaction of
both the parties and now the parties shall not claim any further amount or
costs in this matter. Both the parties have agreed to relinquish all their rights
arising out of this matter. The aforesaid compromise/affidavit is taken on
record as Mark 'A'.
7. It would be relevant to mention here that a perusal of Section
147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 320 Cr.P.C. would
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:112034
2023:PHHC:112034
CRR-840-2023 (O& M) ::3::
show that where a settlement has been effected, the offence under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded on account of
the fact that a mutual compromise has been arrived at between the parties.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant-respondent has
accepted the factum of compromise and has stated that he has no objection if
the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
10. This Court in 'Ramesh Chander Vs. State of Haryana and
another, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 245' held as under:-
"4. As per the provisions of Section 147 of the Act, the
offence under Section 138 is compoundable. Section 147 reads
as under:-
"Offence to be compoundable-
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973(2 of 1974), every offence punishable
under this Act shall be compoundable".
5. The compounding of the offence under Section 138 can be
done during the trial of the case as well as by the High Court
or Court of Session while acting in the exercise of its power of
revision under Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code Reference
may be made to Section 320(6) Criminal Procedure Code in
this regard.
6. Further, under Section 320(8) Criminal Procedure Code the
composition of an offence shall have the effect of acquittal of
the accused with whom the offence has been compounded."
11. This Court in 'Vatsa Electronics Vs. Pala Ram & Anr. decided
on 09.03.2022 in CRR-1585-2019' has also held that once a settlement is
being effected, then in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act and Section 320 Cr.P.C., the accused ought to be acquitted as the offence
stands compounded.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:112034
2023:PHHC:112034
CRR-840-2023 (O& M) ::4::
12. In view of the above, since, the parties have voluntarily settled
the disputes between themselves, it is a fit case for allowing them to
compound the offence.
13. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated
04.07.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mansa and judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 29.08.2018 passed by the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, are hereby set aside. The petitioner is
acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Since the main petition has been disposed of, no order needs to
be passed in the criminal miscellaneous application(s), if any.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
August 24, 2023
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:112034
4 of 4
