Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep Kumar vs Jugal Kishore on 24 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111158
CRR-1885-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:111158 1
110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-1885-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.08.2023
Pardeep Kumar
....Petitioner
versus
Jugal Kishore
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present:- Mr. Hitesh Chopra, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr.Arshdeep Singh Virdi, Advocate,
for the respondent.
*****
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Main case
Instant Revision petition has been filed by accused against the Judgments
and order dated 05.08.2023 and 04.12.2019 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.5,000/-.
2. Brief facts of the case in hand, as recorded by learned Additional Sessions
Judge in the impugned judgment, are reproduced as under:
"2. As per allegations in brief in the complaint, the present complaint
has been filed by the complainant that the wife of accused namely
Seema had executed an agreement to sell dated 2.9.2015 of 3 marlas
house in favour of complainant for a consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/-
(Rs. Six Lacs only). As per this agreement complainant paid a sum of
Rs. 3,00,000/- to wife of accused as earnest money and remaining
amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was agreed to be paid by complainant to said
Seema wife of accused at the time of execution of sale deed on or before
02.09.2016. As per this agreement it was provided that in case vendor
resiles from execution of sale deed, he will pay double the amount of
earnest money i.e. Rs. 6,00,000/-. Said Seema did not execute sale deed
in favour of complainant as agreed and resiled from the agreement to
sell dated 02.09.2015 and hence complainant contacted said Seema and
accused after 02.09.2016 and accused and his wife showed inability to
execute sale deed. Then complainant requested wife of accused to pay
the double of earnest money i.e. a sum of Rs. 6 lacs as per the terms and
conditions of agreement of sell dated 02.09.2015. On this accused on
behalf of his wife under his signature issued a cheque No.518958 dated
1 of 4
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111158
17.09.2016 for Rs. 6 Lacs of Allahabad Bank Branch Amritsar to
complainant in the discharge of his liability.
It is further submitted that complainant deposited the
above mentioned cheque in his account in State Bank of Patiala, Branch
Dinanagar for collection from Allahabad Bank, but the same has been
dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of accused on dated
19.09.2016 as per Memo issued by Allahabad Bank and accordingly
complainant was informed by its Banker on dated 19.09.2016 itself
regarding dishonour of cheque. It is further submitted that complainant
also served a legal notice dated 29.09.2016 through his counsel to the
accused through registered post asking the accused to make payment of
Rs. 6,00,000/- of dishonoured cheque, but the accused has failed to
make payment of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the complainant within stipulated
time and hence accused has committed an offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, this complaint."
3. Notice of motion.
4. On advance service of copy of petition, learned counsel for
complainant/respondent appears and accepts 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 herein.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that parties have
compromised the matter. Per compromise dated 10.08.2023 (Annexure P-1), it was
settled that petitioner shall pay the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- against the cheques no.
518958 dated 17-09-2016 which is full and final settlement. It has been also settled that
the petitioner shall pay the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- in three installments from date of
compromise and the first installment of Rs. 80,000/- has been received by the
complainant/respondent from the wife of the petitioner namely Seema and the remaining
Rs 2.70.000 will be paid by the petitioner to the complainant/respondent in two
installments of Rs. 1,35,000/ each. It has been settled between the parties that second
installment will be paid to the complainant/respondent on or before 12.09.2023 and the
third and last installment by the petitioner will be paid to the respondent on or before
12.10.2023 and after full and final payment of the total amount Rs. 3,50,000/- the
complainant/respondent will have no objection if his complaint is quashed and
petitioner-Pardeep Kumar is acquitted.
2 of 4
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111158
7. On a Court query, learned counsel for complainant/respondent maintains
that respondent does not wish to press charges against the petitioner subject to payment
of remaining installments as aforesaid.
8. Learned counsel for complainant/respondent admits the factum of
compromise having been effected between the parties. He also submits that respondent
has no objection if appeal is accepted and petitioner is acquitted. However, petitioner
may remain bound by the terms of compromise.
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 respondent against the petitioner. It is not a case where
State is the prosecutor. Respondent himself does not now want to press any charges
against the petitioner and in fact, prays that instant petition be allowed or in other words
his complaint against petitioner be dismissed subject to remaining payment, as promised.
Parties are known to each other and wish to now live in congenially in future rather than
maintaining hostility occurred due dishonor of the cheque, resulting in court proceedings
ibid. In totality of the circumstance, I am thus of the view petitioner deserves to be
acquitted.
10. As an upshot of the discussion, and also for the grounds stated in the
petition and for mutual peace and future bonhomie between the parties, and in the larger
interest of justice, 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.
11. The petitioner shall remain bound by the terms of compromise, failing
which complainant/respondent shall have liberty to approach this Court.
12. Petition is allowed accordingly.
3 of 4
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111158
CRM-35332-2023
Application herein is for compounding of offence in complaint under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Since the main case is allowed vide order of even date, no further
proceedings are warranted. Instant application is rendered infructuous.
CRM-35330-2023
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.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA)
JUDGE
24.08.2023
'D'Vir/
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111158
4 of 4
4 of 4
