Punjab-Haryana High Court
Iqbal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 15 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:006423
2024:PHHC:006423
CRR-2542-2011 (O&M) --1--
245 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-2542-2011 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION:-15.01.2024
Iqbal Singh ...Petitioner.
vs.
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents..
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Sudhir Paruthi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shubham Kaushik, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)
1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment dated
23.09.2011 passed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar,
whereby the appeal filed against the judgment dated 30.07.2008 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, was accepted.
2. The facts of the case are that on account of dishonour of cheques
bearing No.52430, 89628 and 242900, total amounting to Rs.1,60,000/-, a
complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(hereinafter referred to "NI Act") came to be filed at the instance of
respondent No.2-complainant against the petitioner, but the same was
dismissed, thereby acquitting the petitioner.
3. Aggrieved against the judgment of acquittal, respondent No.2
filed first appeal before the court of Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, which was
accepted vide judgment dated 23.09.2011, thereby, convicting the petitioner
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:006423
2024:PHHC:006423
CRR-2542-2011 (O&M) --2--
under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in
default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for
three months.
4. While assailing the aforesaid judgment passed by learned
Appellate Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the
pendency of present revision petition, better sense has prevailed and the
petitioner has discharged his liability towards respondent No.2-complainant,
which fact has even been admitted by the learned counsel representing
respondent No.2-complainant.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
paper-book.
6. A conjoint reading of Section 138 read with Section 147 of the
1881 Act, makes it clear that every offence punishable under 1881 Act is
compoundable. Section 147 of the aforesaid Act is reproduced hereunder for
reference:-
"147 Offences to be compoundable. --
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every
offence punishable under this Act shall be
compoundable."
Applying the aforesaid proposition to the facts and circumstances
of the present case, the petitioner having settled the dispute with the
respondent No.2-complainant having made the entire payment, offence
under Section 138 of 1881 Act, thus, stands compounded. The aforesaid
view is mainly dervied from the proposition of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Ghanshyam Gautam and another vs.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:006423
2024:PHHC:006423
CRR-2542-2011 (O&M) --3--
Usha Rani (since deceased) thr. Lrs., passed in Criminal Appeal No.65 of
2024, SLP Crl. No.3289-2018, decided on 04.01.2024.
7. Furthermore, following the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of "B.V. Seshaiah Vs. The State of Telangana &
Anr., 2023(1)R.C.R. (Criminal) 831" the compounding of offence has to be
followed by setting aside of conviction order passed by the Courts below.
Reference may be made to Paragraph Nos. 10-13 thereof, which
are reproduced hereunder:-
10. "In the case of M/s Meters and Instruments
Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Kanchan Mehta, this Court
held that the nature of offence under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act is primarily related to a civil wrong and has
been specifically made a compoundable offence. The
relevant paragraph of the judgment has been extracted
herein:
'This Court has noted that the object of the
statute was to facilitate smooth functioning of business
transactions. The provision is necessary as in many
transactions cheques were issued merely as a device to
defraud the creditors. Dishonour of cheque causes
incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience to the Vide
the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and
Negotiable
Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 payee and
credibility of business transactions suffers a setback. At
the same time, it was also noted that nature of offence
under Section 138 primarily related to a civil wrong
and the 2002 amendment specifically made it
compoundable.'
11. This is a very clear case of the parties
entering into an agreement and compounding the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:006423
2024:PHHC:006423
CRR-2542-2011 (O&M) --4--
offence to save themselves from the process of
litigation. When such a step has been taken by the
parties, and the law very clearly allows them to do the
same, the High Court then cannot override such
compounding and impose its will.
12. It must also be noted that the respondent
No.2 was duty-bound to file a compromise petition
before the High Court, and by not doing the same has
withdrawn key information from the High Court, which
has led to an unwarranted confirmation of the
Appellants' conviction.
13. We, therefore, allow these Appeals and set
aside the order of conviction passed by the trial Court.
It is, however, kept open to the parties to settle their
dispute as per the terms of the Memorandum of
Understanding."
8. In view of the discussion made hereinabove and to give a
complete quietus to the litigation, the present revision petition is accepted.
The petitioner having admittedly discharged his liability towards the cheque
in question, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar are hereby set aside, resulting into
acquittal of the petitioner.
15.01.2024 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sonika JUDGE
whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:006423
4 of 4
