Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ransher Singh vs The Bathinda Central Co-Op Bank Ltd on 25 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058075
CRR-1925-2022 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
254 CRR-1925-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 25.04.2024
Ransher Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
The Bathinda Central CO-OP ...Respondents
Bank Ltd.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT
Present : Mr. Dhanpat Rai Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Naginder Singh Vashisht, Advocate,
for the respondent.
N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral)
1. The present revision petition has been preferred against
the judgment and order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Talwandi Sabo and the judgment dated
18.03.2019 passed the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, whereby,
the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881
(hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine
of Rs. 5,000/- alongwith default stipulation.
2. During the pendency of the present petition, the
petitioner moved a CRM 12322 of 2023 under Section 147 of the Act
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058075
CRR-1925-2022 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:058075 -2-
read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to compound the offences.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had
deposited an amount of Rs. 4,06,000/- with the respondent-bank on
22.09.2022. He further contends that the petitioner has amicably
resolved the dispute with the bank and the entire payment has been
made to the bank and, thus, the petitioner may be allowed to
compound the offence with the respondent and the petitioner may be
ordered to be acquitted.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent on
instructions from Rajiv Kumar Sharma, Assistant Manager, Central
Cooperative Bank, Head Quarter Bathinda, who is present in the
Court submits that the petitoiner has already made payment to the
bank and the respondent/complainant bank has no objection if the
offence is ordered to be compounded by this Court and the petitioner
is ordered to be acquitted by this Court.
4. 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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058075
CRR-1925-2022 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:058075 -3-
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
5. 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)
6. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I deem it
appropriate to dispose of the present revision petition in terms of
compromise consequently the impugned orders are set aside.
7. 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058075
CRR-1925-2022 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:058075 -4-
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.
8. 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 poor person, 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.
9. 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.
10. All pending applications, if any, are disposed off,
accordingly.
25.04.2024 ( N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
