Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 29 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011733
2024:PHHC:011733
251 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-3913-2018 (O & M)
Date of decision: 29.01.2024
ASHOK KUMAR
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Kanishk Sarup, Advocate
for the applicant/petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Eeshan Garg, Advocate for
Mr. Pranshul Dhull, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL)
CRM-52350-2023, CRM-52352-2023 &
CRM-52353-2023
Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner wishes to withdraw
the applications as the main case is listed for today.
Applications stand dismissed as withdrawn.
MAIN CASE
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of impugned judgment dated 12.10.2018
passed by Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner
against the judgment of conviction dated 27.02.2018 and order of sentence
dated 28.02.2018 in a case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act has been upheld in view of the compromise effected between the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.2
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011733
CRR-3913-2018 (O & M) 2 2024:PHHC:011733
has instituted 04 complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act against the
petitioner. The petitioner and respondent No.2 have effected a compromise and
on the basis of the compromise except the present case, the other three cases
have already been compounded and the petitioner has been acquitted.
3. The following order was passed on 14.12.2018:
"The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the matter has since been compromised amongst the
parties.
Notice of motion for 31.1.2019.
At this stage, Sh. Paras Sharma, Advocate has put in
appearance on behalf of the complainant and has filed
Vakalatnama, which is taken on record, and has also
acknowledged the said fact that the parties have now reached
at a compromise.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however,
stated that since the petitioner is in the category of 'Below
Poverty Line' and is unable to deposit any additional amount
and that infact the compromise has also been effected for an
amount much lesser than the cheque amount, therefore, the
petitioner be exempted from depositing any additional amount
as mandated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 2010(2) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 851 Damodar S. Prabhu Versus Sayed Babalal.
In view of the aforestated position, the parties are
directed to appear before the trial Court on 8.1.2019 so as to
get their statements recorded qua the factum of compromise.
The petitioner would also be at liberty to adduce evidence as
regards his financial status including the assertion that the
petitioner is in the category of 'Below Poverty Line'.
The trial Court after recording the statements shall
submit its report on or before the next date of hearing as
regards authenticity and genuineness of compromise after
recording statements of all the affected parties and also as
regards the assertion of the petitioner that he is in the
category of 'Below Poverty Line'.
In the meantime, the substantive sentence of
imprisonment as imposed upon the petitioner shall remain
stayed subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate
concerned."
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011733
CRR-3913-2018 (O & M) 3 2024:PHHC:011733
4. In compliance of the above order, a report has been received from
the concerned jurisdictional Court that the compromise between the parties is
genuine and arrived at without any pressure or coercion from anyone.
5. In view of the compromise and the ratio of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and
another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Ramgopal and another Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834 and Shakuntala Sawhney (Mrs) Vs.
Kaushalya (Mrs.) and others (1980) 1 SCC 63 and Full Bench of this Court in
Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, this petition
is allowed and impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
27.02.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani along with
impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani
dated 12.10.2018 are set aside and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the
same are quashed, qua the petitioner.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
January 29, 2024 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011733
3 of 3
