Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Shree Om Traders & Anr vs R.S. Trading Company & Anr on 15 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147581
2023:PHHC:147581
CRR-1911-2018 & CRR-1918-2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision : November 15, 2023
1. CRR No. 1911 of 2018
M/s Shree Om Traders and another ....Petitioners
Versus
R.S.Trading Company and another ....Respondents
2. CRR No. 1918 of 2018
M/s Shree Om Traders and another ....Petitioners
Versus
R.S.Trading Company and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr. M.R.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1
Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana
KULDEEP TIWARI,J.
1. Since both these revision petitions derive their origination
from alike facts, besides identical questions of law are involved
therein, therefore, they are amenable for being decided through a
common verdict. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being
extracted from CRR-1911-2018.
2. The instant revision petition is directed against the
impugned verdict of conviction and consequent thereto order of
sentence, as drawn by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Faridabad, respectively on 27.05.2015 and 29.05.2015, whereby, the
petitioner(s) has been convicted for offence punishable under
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147581
2023:PHHC:147581
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred
to as the 'N.I. Act'), and, has been sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation to the tune of
Rs.92,600/- to the respondent No.1.
3. In addition, the instant revision petition also assails the
verdict dated 23.05.2018, as passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby, the statutory appeal preferred
by the petitioners against the impugned verdict of conviction and
order of sentence (supra) was dismissed.
4. Since the instant revision petition garners its genesis
from the dishonor of two cheques, as issued by the petitioners in
favour of the respondent No.1/complainant, it is deemed imperative
to first succinctly extract the chronological factual matrix of the case.
5. The respondent No.1, which is a proprietorship firm,
being the registered owner of the vehicle, make: Ashoka Leyland
Container, bearing Registration No. HR-38-P-7505, was contacted
by the petitioner No.2 for use and occupation of the said vehicle.
The said vehicle was financed by ICICI Bank Limited. Accordingly,
the respondent No.1 agreed to hand-over the vehicle to the
petitioner No.2 on the terms and conditions, as mentioned in the
relevant agreement. As per the terms and conditions of the relevant
agreement, since the remaining installments of the vehicle were to
be paid by the petitioner No.2, therefore, the petitioner No.2, being
proprietor of petitioner No.1-firm, issued 30 postdated cheques in
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147581
2023:PHHC:147581
favour of the respondent No.1, through his firm. However, when
Cheque bearing No.577511 dated 14.8.2011 for Rs.35,390/-, and,
Cheque No. 577512 dated 14.9.2011 Rs.35,390/-, both drawn on
Punjab National Bank, Jharsentli Branch, Ballabgarh (hereinafter
referred to as the 'disputed cheques') were presented before the
bank concerned, the same were returned dishonoured, vide bank
return memos dated 04.10.2011, with the remarks "Exceeds
Arrangements". Consequently, the respondent No.1 served a legal
notice upon the petitioners. However, since the legal notice did not
reap any fruitful results, the respondent No.1 was propelled to
institute a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the
learned Magistrate concerned. Ultimately, the said complaint
resulted in conviction of the petitioner(s), in the manner described
hereinabove.
6. Upon the instant revision petition coming before this
Court for initial hearing, on 30.05.2018, the learned counsel for the
petitioners made a submission qua readiness and willingness of the
petitioners to deposit 50% of the total disputed cheque amount of
Rs.70,780/-, whereupon, after issuing notice of motion, this Court
directed release of the petitioners on interim bail, if 50% of the total
disputed cheque amount becomes deposited.
7. Pursuant to the making of the directions (supra), the
petitioners deposited 50% of the total disputed cheque amount and
the said factum did not become disputed by the respondent
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147581
2023:PHHC:147581
No.1/complainant. Subsequently, on 04.12.2018, upon a ray of
hope, qua compounding the offences, being expressed by the
learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court relegated the
parties to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.
8. Thereafter, in due course, the parties compromised the
matter, through amicable settlement, which was reduced into writing.
The relevant extract of the compromise so effected inter se the
parties is extracted hereinafter:-
"...That now both the parties have arrived at a
compromise in the Panchayat, which was held by
the members of both the parties. Now first party
and second party have resolved the matters
amicably and without any pressure or coercion, as
per which, second party has given the entire
amount of cheque with penalty as full and final
payments towards Case No.6 of 2006. As per
settlement, the amount which was deposited by the
order of the Hon'ble High Court will be released in
favour of party of the first part...."
9. The learned counsels appearing for the parties have also
lent corroboration to the hereinabove extracted compromise deed.
Moreover, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant
and the learned State counsel have also expressed their "No
Objection" in case the present revision petition is allowed and the
petitioners are acquitted, since the parties have reached at a
compromise.
10. What emanates from the hereinabove discussed material
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147581
2023:PHHC:147581
and submissions, is that, both the parties are ad idem that they have
compromised the matter through amicable settlement, without any
pressure, threat or undue influence, therefore, the offence(s) be
compounded, so that the peace and harmony may get restored inter
se the parties.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed
reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.T.
Sivaperumal Vs. Mohammed Hyath (D) By Lrs. 2017(2) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 453 and in A.J. Asana Vs. Sittrarasu 2019(5) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 568.
12. In view of the submissions made by the counsels for the
parties and the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in A.T.
Sivaperumal's case (supra) and in A.J. Asana's case (supra) both
the petitions bearing CRR-1911-2018 and CRR-1918-2018 are
allowed. The aforesaid complaints and all consequential
proceedings arising out of these, including the judgments of
conviction dated 27.5.2015 and orders of sentence dated 29.5.2015
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad, in
both the complaints, are hereby quashed.
13. The parties shall remain bound by the terms and
conditions of the compromise.
( KULDEEP TIWARI )
November 15, 2023 JUDGE
'tiwana'
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No
Whether Reportable ? Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147581
5 of 5
