Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhveer Singh vs Ashok Kumar And Anr on 22 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053988
1
CRR No.871 of 2023 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:053988
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
252
CRR No.871 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 22.04.2024
LAKHVEER SINGH ......Petitioner(s)
Vs
ASHOK KUMAR AND ANR. ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Charanpuneet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Yashasvi Goyal, Advocate for
Mr. Gaurav Gogna, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Rahul Jindal, Asstt. A.G., Punjab
for respondent No.2.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)
[1]. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to the
judgment dated 09.03.2023 passed by the court of Sessions Judge, Bathina
whereby appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 23.09.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Bathinda was
dismissed thereby maintaining the said judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the Trial Court.
[2]. Having been implicated as an accused in a complaint arising out
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC, the
petitioner vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.09.2022 was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He was also directed to pay
compensation to the complainant to the tune of total amount of cheque i.e.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053988
CRR No.871 of 2023 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:053988
Rs.4,54,161/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of cheque and in
default thereof, he was further liable to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of one month.
[3]. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed
vide judgment dated 09.03.2023 whereby the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 23.09.2022 passed by the Trial Court was up-held. Thus, the
present petition came to be filed before this Court. The sentence already stands
suspended vide order dated 25.04.2023 passed by this Court. Prior thereto, the
petitioner has already undergone actual sentence of 01 month and 16 days.
[4]. During pendency of the aforesaid appeal, better sense prevailed and
both the parties settled their dispute. An amount of Rs.1,02,000/- was paid to
respondent No.1 on 25.04.2023 before this Court vide demand draft bearing
No.081487 dated 07.04.2023. Another sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to
respondent No.1 on 06.02.2024 vide demand draft No.081559 dated 02.02.2024
and remaining amount of Rs.52,000/- has been paid to him today vide demand
draft No.500700 dated 16.04.2024.
[5]. In view of the above noted subsequent development, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the parties having settled their disputes in order to
bury their differences, the Complaint in question along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom i.e. judgment dated 09.03.2023 passed by the
Sessions Judge, Bathinda and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
23.09.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda be thus, quashed.
For the said purpose, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon
judgment of this court passed in "Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053988
CRR No.871 of 2023 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:053988
Punjab", 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and "Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and
another", 2012(4) RCR (Crl.)543.
[6]. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent
No.1 while accepting the factum of settlement, raises no objection in allowing the
present revision petition thereby quashing the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the Courts below along with all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom as the entire due already stands paid by the petitioner.
[7]. The parties having settled their disputes and nothing remaining due
qua the petitioner; so as to maintain peace and harmony and also to save the
judicial time as no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the
criminal proceedings, it would be rather in the interest of both the parties to render
a complete quietus to the criminal proceedings and thus, no cause remains for this
Court to invest further time and effort in adjudicating this revision petition on
merits. My aforesaid view is mainly derived from the proposition of law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Ram Gopal vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 322. Relevant paras 18 and 19 thereof are
reproduced hereunder:-
"18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that the plenary jurisdiction of this
Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be
limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions. It is also noteworthy
that even in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C.
conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal
proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of the
Constitution embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal
proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard
must be given to the over-arching objective of sentencing in the criminal
justice system, which is grounded on the sublime philosophy of
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053988
CRR No.871 of 2023 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:053988
maintenance of peace of the collective and that the rationale of placing an
individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation.
19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C.
where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties
in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the
extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482Cr.P.C.
or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked
beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we
reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised
carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind:
(i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii)
Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise
between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons,
prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other
relevant considerations."
[8]. Thus, in view of the above as well as keeping in mind the law laid
down in the aforementioned judgments, the present petition is allowed and
judgment dated 09.03.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bathinda; judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 23.09.2022 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, along with all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner and he is acquitted of the offence
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act relating to Complaint Case
bearing COMA No.3655 of 2019.
[9]. All pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
April 22, 2024 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
