Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh vs Amrik Singh on 3 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045576
CRR-155-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045576 - 1-
113+249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-155-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision:03.04.2024
Sukhdev Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
Amrik singh ...Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present: Mr. Ranjodh Singh Sidhu, Advocate
for the applicant-petitioner.
Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, Advocate, for the respondent.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J.(Oral)
1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition against
the impugned judgment dated 06.12.2023 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran and the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 17.09.2019 passed by the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran, whereby, the petitioner was
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the
Act') and was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one year.
The convict is also ordered to pay compensation to the tune of cheque
amount plus Rs.20,000/- to the complainant under Section 357 of the
Cr.P.C. within one month.
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045576
CRR-155-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045576 - 2-
2. As per the case set up by the complainant/respondent, the
petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 16.05.2015 for
personal necessity and had undertaken to repay the amount after one
month. Thereafter, on the request of the respondent, petitioner issued
a cheque for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, bearing No.428916 dated
08.07.2015 from his account No.76502 maintained with Punjab &
Sind Bank, Branch Guru Ram Dass Marg, Tarn Taran in favour of the
respondent. At the time of issuing of above said cheque, it was
assured by the petitioner that the cheque issued by him would be
honoured on its presentation for encashment as he has sufficient funds
in his account with the bank. The respondent in good faith and on
assurance of the petitioner received the said cheque. The respondent
has deposited the said cheque in his account bearing
No.50100011565536 with his banker i.e. HDFC Bank Limited,
Branch Chohla Sahib, Tarn Taran for crediting the amount covered in
the said cheque in his account after collecting and realizing the same
from the account of the petitioner maintained with Punjab and Sind
Bank, Branch Guru Ram Dass Marg, Tarn Taran. The banker of the
respondent i.e. HDFC Bank Limited, Branch Chohla Sahib, Tarn
Taran sent the said cheque in collection for realization of the amount
covered in the cheque to drawer bank i.c. Punjab and Sind Bank,
Branch Guru Ram Dass Marg, Tarn Taran in due course of its
business, but, to the utter surprise of the respondent, the cheque was
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045576
CRR-155-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045576 - 3-
dishonoured by the banker of the petitioner i.e. Punjab and Sind Bank,
Branch Guru Ram Dass Marg, Tarn Taran vide memo dated
13.07.2015 stating reasons therein that "funds insufficient" in the
account of the petitioner with the bank. The respondent has been
informed in this regard by his banker i.e. HDFC Bank, Branch Chohla
Sahib, Tarn Taran by issuing the above memo dated 13.07.2015. The
respondent approached the petitioner personally and brought to his
notice that cheque issued by him was dishonoured due to funds
insufficient in his account but the petitioner did not accede to the
genuine requests of the respondent in this regard. A legal notice under
Section 138 of the Act was also served to the petitioner by the
respondent on 20.07.2015 through registered post at the address
mentioned above in the heading of the complaint through his counsel,
but, the petitioner again did not make the outstanding payment. The
petitioner did not reply to the legal notice till date. The petitioner did
not return the amount of dishonoured cheque to the respondent so far.
However, the petitioner has knowledge and notice about the
dishonour of cheque issued by him. The petitioner, as such,
committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. With
these broad allegations, the complaint was filed by the respondent.
3. During the pendency of the present petition, learned
counsel for the petitioner has filed an application under Section 147
of the Act seeking permission to compound the offence punishable
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045576
CRR-155-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045576 - 4-
under Section 138 of the Act. It has been stated that the matter has
been amicably settled between the parties and a compromise deed
(Annexure P-1) dated 09.01.2024 has been executed between the
petitioner and the respondent. Since, the petitioner had already paid
the cheque amount to the respondent, the application may be allowed
and the parties may be permitted to compound the offences.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
has also admitted that the matter has been amicably resolved between
the parties and the respondent has received the entire amount and he
has no objection if the petitioner is ordered to be acquitted of the
notice of accusation.
5. A short reply has been filed by way of affidavit of
respondent and the same was taken on record.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with
their able assistance, I have gone through the record carefully.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of
Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., AIR 2010 (SC) 1907:
2010(2) RCR (Criminal 851) as follows:-
15. With regard to the progression of litigation in
cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General
has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded
scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay
compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the
requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent
for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045576
CRR-155-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045576 - 5-
compounding of offences at any stage, however belated,
gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay
settling the cases for years. An application for
compounding made after several years not only results
in the system being burdened but the complainant is also
deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission,
we direct that the following guidelines be followed:-
THE GUIDELINES
(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:
(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of
Summons be suitably modified making it clear to the
accused that he could make an application for
compounding of the offences at the first or second
hearing of the case and that if such an application is
made, compounding may be allowed by the court
without imposing any costs on the accused.
(b) If the accused does not make an application for
compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for
compounding is made before the Magistrate at a
subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject
to the condition that the accused will be required to pay
10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a
condition for compounding with the Legal Services
Authority, or such authority as the Court deems fit.
(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is
made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in
revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed
on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the
cheque amount by way of costs.
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045576
CRR-155-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045576 - 6-
(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made
before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to
20% of the cheque amount.
Let it also be clarified that any costs imposed in
accordance with these guidelines should be deposited
with the Legal Services Authority operating at the level
of the Court before which compounding takes place. For
instance, in case of compounding during the pendency of
proceedings before a Magistrate's Court or a Court of
Sessions, such costs should be deposited with the District
Legal Services Authority. Likewise, costs imposed in
connection with composition before the High Court
should be deposited with the State Legal Services
Authority and those imposed in connection with
composition before the Supreme Court should be
deposited with the National Legal Services Authority.
16. We are also in agreement with the Learned Attorney
General's suggestions for controlling the filing of
multiple complaints that are relatable to the same
transaction. It was submitted that complaints are being
increasingly filed in multiple jurisdictions in a vexatious
manner which causes tremendous harassment and
prejudice to the drawers of the cheque. For instance, in
the same transaction pertaining to a loan taken on an
installment basis to be repaid in equated monthly
installments, several cheques are taken which are dated
for each monthly installment and upon the dishonor of
each of such cheques, different complaints are being
filed in different courts which may also have jurisdiction
in relation to the complaint. In light of this submission,
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045576
CRR-155-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045576 - 7-
we direct that it should be mandatory for the
complainant to disclose that no other complaint has
been filed in any other court in respect of the same
transaction. Such a disclosure should be made on a
sworn affidavit which should accompany the complaint
filed under Section 200 of the CrPC. If it is found that
such multiple complaints have been filed, orders for
transfer of the complaint to the first court should be
given, generally speaking, by the High Court after
imposing heavy costs on the complainant for resorting to
such a practice. These directions should be given effect
prospectively.
17. We are also conscious of the view that the judicial
endorsement of the above quoted guidelines could be
seen as an act of judicial law-making and therefore an
intrusion into the legislative domain. It must be kept in
mind that Section 147 of the Act does not carry any
guidance on how to proceed with the compounding of
offences under the Act. We have already explained that
the scheme contemplated under Section 320 of the CrPC
cannot be followed in the strict sense. In view of the
legislative vacuum, we see no hurdle to the endorsement
of some suggestions which have been designed to
discourage litigants from unduly delaying the
composition of the offence in cases involving Section 138
of the Act. The graded scheme for imposing costs is a
means to encourage compounding at an early stage of
litigation. In the status quo, valuable time of the Court is
spent on the trial of these cases and the parties are not
liable to pay any Court fee since the proceedings are
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045576
CRR-155-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045576 - 8-
governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, even
though the impact of the offence is largely confined to
the private parties. Even though the imposition of costs
by the competent court is a matter of discretion, the
scale of costs has been suggested in the interest of
uniformity. The competent Court can of course reduce
the costs with regard to the specific facts and
circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in
writing for such variance. Bona fide litigants should of
course contest the proceedings to their logical end. Even
in the past, this Court has used its power to do complete
justice under Article 142 of the Constitution to frame
guidelines in relation to subject-matter where there was
a legislative vacuum.
8. It is not in dispute that the respondent had initiated the
criminal prosecution of the petitioner on the ground that a cheque of
an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- issued by the petitioner stood
dishonoured. Now from the compromise deed dated 09.01.2024
(Annexure P-1), it is apparent that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has been
paid by the petitioner to the respondent and the learned counsel for
the respondent has also made a statement that the offence may be
ordered to be compounded and he has no objection in case, the
petitioner is ordered to be acquitted on the basis of the compromise
between the parties. Consequently, by invoking the powers of this
Court under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with
Section 482 Cr.PC, the parties are allowed to compound the offences
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045576
CRR-155-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045576 - 9-
and the petitioner is ordered to be acquitted of notice of accusation.
9. The impugned judgment dated 06.12.2023 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran and the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 17.09.2019 passed by the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran are ordered to be set
aside and the petitioner is ordered to be acquitted of the notice of
accusation.
10. The petitioner is also directed to deposit an amount of
Rs.75,000/- which is 15% of the cheque amount, within a period of
two months, from today with the Punjab Legal Services Authority. In
case, the cost is not deposited with the Punjab State Legal Service
Authority within a period of two months from today, the present
petition shall be deemed to be dismissed.
11. All other pending applications if any, are also disposed
off, accordingly.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
03.04.2024 JUDGE
amit rana
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
9 of 9
