Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjeet Kumar vs Anant Ram on 9 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048714
CRR-40-2019 (O&M) -1 2024:PHHC:048714
255 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-40-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision:09.04.2024
Surjeet Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
Anant Ram ...Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present: Mr. Karambir Singh Randhawa, Advocate for
Mr. Satbir Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Neha Bindal, Advocate
for the respondent.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition before this
Court with a prayer to quash the impugned judgment of conviction dated
20.11.2017 and order of sentence dated 22.11.2017 passed by the Court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa whereby the present petitioner was
ordered to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and was
sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay the compensation
amount to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/- to the complainant and also against the
judgment dated 15.12.2018 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sirsa,
whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed.
2. A reply by way of an affidavit on behalf of respondent/complainant
along with Vakalatanama has been filed and the same are taken on record.
3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048714
CRR-40-2019 (O&M) -2 2024:PHHC:048714
contends that the parties have already entered into a compromise
(Annexure P-1) dated 30.12.2018. In compliance of the said compromise, a
payment of Rs.1,20,000/- was paid by the father of the petitioner to the
respondent and nothing remained due towards him. Consequently, the
respondent had also signed the compromise deed and stated that he had no
objection in case, the present petition is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to
be acquitted by this Court. Even as per affidavit filed today in Court, the
respondent had clearly stated on oath that he had received an amount of
Rs.1,20,000/- from the petitioner through his father and nothing was due
towards him.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent also
submits that the respondent has no objection, in case the petitioner is ordered to
be acquitted in view of the compromise between the parties.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able
assistance, I have gone through the record carefully.
6. 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 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
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048714
CRR-40-2019 (O&M) -3 2024:PHHC:048714
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.
(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
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048714
CRR-40-2019 (O&M) -4 2024:PHHC:048714
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, 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.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048714
CRR-40-2019 (O&M) -5 2024:PHHC:048714
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 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.
7. In the present case also, the respondent had initiated the criminal
prosecution of the petitioner on the ground of dishonour of cheque, however,
an amount of Rs.1,20,000 has been paid to the respondent and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent has also made a statement that the offence
may be ordered to be compounded. Consequently, by invoking the powers of
this Court under Section 147 of the "Act" read with Section 482 Cr.P.C, the
parties are allowed to compound the offences and the petitioner is ordered to be
acquitted of the notice of accusation.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048714
CRR-40-2019 (O&M) -6 2024:PHHC:048714
8. The present petition is allowed and the impugned judgment of
conviction dated 20.11.2017 and order of sentence dated 22.11.2017 passed by
the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa and the judgment dated
15.12.2018 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sirsa are hereby ordered to
be set aside.
10. The petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.18,000/- i.e.
equal to 15% of the cheque amount within a period of 02 months with Punjab
State Legal Services Authority. In case, the amount is not deposited with the
Punjab State Legal Services Authority within a period of 02 months, the present
petition shall be deemed to be dismissed.
11. All other pending applications if any, are also disposed off,
accordingly.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
09.04.2024 JUDGE
hitesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
