Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sakawat Khan vs Ravi Kumar on 22 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054299
CRR-2114-2019 (O&M) -1 2024:PHHC:054299
113+249 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-2114-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision:22.04.2024
Sakawat Khan ...Petitioner
Vs.
Ravi Kumar ...Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present: Mr. Munfaid Khan, Advocate
for the non-applicant/petitioner.
Mr.Shashikant Singh, Advocate
for the applicant/respondent.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J.
CRM-54505-2023
1. The respondent has filed the present application under Section
482 Cr.P.C with a prayer to release an amount of Rs.25,000 in favour of the
respondent, which was deposited by the petitioner in terms of the order dated
02.09.2019 passed by this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the present case
was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and
parties have amicably resolved all their disputes and have signed the
settlement/compromise deed dated 03.10.2023 before the Mediation and
Conciliation Centre of this Court. He further contends that the petitioner had
deposited a draft of Rs.25,000/-, in favour of the respondent and the said draft
is with Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. He prays that the said draft may be
handed over to the respondent.
3. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054299
CRR-2114-2019 (O&M) -2 2024:PHHC:054299
petitioner submits that he has no objection, in case, the application is allowed
and an amount of Rs.25,000/- is handed over to the respondent of the present
case.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
5. The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to hand over the
draft of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent in the present case against proper
receipt and identification. Since the period of validity of the draft has already
expired, the petitioner will take the old draft from the respondent and shall
hand over the new valid draft of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent within a period
of 02 weeks.
6. The application stands allowed.
Main case
1. The petitioner had filed the present revision petition against the
impugned judgment of conviction dated 02.11.2017 and order of sentence dated
03.11.2017, passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad,
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 SI for a period of three
months and to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the
respondent/complainant and also against the judgment dated 09.08.2019 passed
by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby the appeal filed
by the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed.
2. During the course of hearing of the above-mentioned case, the
matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for an
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054299
CRR-2114-2019 (O&M) -3 2024:PHHC:054299
amicable settlement. Finally, both the parties entered into an compromise and
had signed the settlement/compromise deed dated 03.10.2023 before the
Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and had resolved all the
disputes in an amicable manner in the following terms:-
(i) That the first party has agreed to resolve the entire dispute regarding the
amount due towards the second party for a total amount of Rs.2,50,000/-
(Rupees Two Lacs and Fifty Thousand Only). Out of this amount,
Rs1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) has been deposited by the petitioner
before this Hon'ble Court in the present criminal revision, when the petition
was referred to the Mediation. The said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh Only) may be release in favour of the respondent.
(ii) That the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty
Thousand only) shall be paid by the first party to the second party vide six
instalments of Rs.25,000/- each (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) vide
demand draft drawn in favour of the party of the second part on 05.11.2023,
05.12.2023, 05.01.2024, 05.02.2024, 05.03.2024 and 05.04.2024.
iii) That after the receipt of the full and final amount, the second party shall
have no objection if the present CRR No.2150 of 2019 along with CRR
Nos.2125, 2114 and 2115 of 2019 filed by the first party is allowed and the
first party is acquitted of the charges against him in view of the present
compromise.
iv) The second party also be bound to make any statement before any Court of
Law or furnish any affidavit, if required, to honour the present compromise
after the receipt of the full and final amount.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the parties have
entered into a compromise with each other and all the payments have been
made as per the compromise deed/settlement dated 03.10.2023. He further
contends that in view of the provisions mentioned in Section 147 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, the parties may be allowed to compound the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054299
CRR-2114-2019 (O&M) -4 2024:PHHC:054299
offence and the petitioner may be ordered to be acquitted.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent also
submits that he has on objection, in case, the petitioner is ordered to be
acquitted in the present case on the basis of the compromise.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon Cochin Hotels
Co.(P) Ltd. and others Vs. Kairali Granites and others, 2006(2) RCR
(Criminal) 333 and K. Subramanian Vs. R. Rajathi represented by POAP
Kaliappan, 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 184 contended that even after
finalization of judgment of conviction and order of sentence, petitioner can
resort to compounding mechanism in terms of Section 147 of Negotiable
Instruments Act as the offence related to dishonouring of cheque is having
compensatory profile and it should be given precedence over punitive
mechanism. Offence is almost a civil wrong which has been clothed in a
criminal overtone, therefore, the priority should be given to compensatory
mechanism.
6. Learned counsel also relied upon Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed
Babalal H.(supra) Kaushalya Devi Massand vs. Roopkishore, 2011(2) RCR
(Criminal) 298 and contended that the compromise in question would
definitely go in long way to strengthen the mutual relationship between the
parties and would serve as an ever lasting tool in their favour. This exercise
would be in consonance with the spirit of Section 147 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act as endorsed in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra).
7. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to
dispose off the present revision petition in terms of compromise consequently
the impugned orders are set aside.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054299
CRR-2114-2019 (O&M) -5 2024:PHHC:054299
8. So far as 15% of the cheque amount in terms of ratio of Damodar
S. Prabhu's case (supra) is concerned, I am of the view that Section 147 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act does not contain any guideline or procedure for
proceeding with the compounding of the offences. Since scheme under Section
320 Cr.P.C cannot be followed in stricto sensu, therefore, Hon'ble Apex Court
has also clarified that in order to discourage chronic litigants from delaying the
composition of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, the scheme for
imposing costs is considered to be a valid means to encourage compounding at
the earliest. Valuable time of the Court is also involved in the trial of the cases
and the parties are not liable to pay any Court fee in such proceedings, even
though the impact of the offence is largely confined to the private parties. The
imposition of costs would be a matter of discretion of the Court.
9. In view of the fact that the parties have resolved their differences
and have compromised the matter and also the fact that the petitioner is a truck
driver and he is sole bread winner of the family, I am of the view that 15% of
the cheque amount towards cost(s) of litigation can be waived off in the interest
of justice.
10. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgments/order(s)
are set aside and the parties are allowed to compound the offence in terms of
Section 147 of the Act and petitioner is ordered to be acquitted of the charge.
11. All pending applications, if any, are disposed off, accordingly.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
22.04.2024 JUDGE
hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
