Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shashi Adlakha vs M/S Ganga Life Science Pvt Ltd on 18 March, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038840
2024 : PHHC : 038840
115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.10998-99 of 2024 in/and
CRR No.577 of 2020 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18th March, 2024
Shashi Adlakha
... Petitioner
Versus
M/s Ganga Life Science Pvt. Ltd.
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Kamal Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Verma, Advocate for the respondent.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
CRM No.10998 of 2024
In view of the averments made in the application and in the
interest of justice, the same is allowed and the date of hearing in the
revision petition is advanced from 18.09.2024 to today. Let the
arguments be heard.
In view of the averments made in the application and in the
interest of justice, the same is allowed as prayed for and the affidavit
(Annexure A-1) filed on behalf of the complainant/respondent is taken
on record.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038840
CRM No.10998-99 of 2024 in/and 2024 : PHHC : 038840
1. The petitioner is impugning the judgment of his conviction
dated 13.04.2018 and order of sentence dated 16.04.2018 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad which was upheld by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated
24.01.2020.
2. While drawing the attention of this Court to Annexure A-1,
which is an affidavit field by Sunil Kushvaha, i.e. authorized signatory
of the respondent/complainant, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that during the pendency of the instant revision petition, the
parties have amicably resolved all their disputes and hence in the
circumstances, a prayer for compounding of the offence under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as,
'the Act') has been made. In support, learned counsel has placed
reliance upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'A.T.
Sivaperumal Vs. Mohammed Hyath (D) By Lrs.' 2017(2) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 453 and in 'A.J. Asana Vs. Sittrarasu' 2019(5) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 568.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant/respondent does not dispute the submissions made by the
counsel opposite that subsequent to the conviction of the petitioner for
offence under Section 138 of the Act, vide which he was sentenced to
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038840
CRM No.10998-99 of 2024 in/and 2024 : PHHC : 038840
undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a
compensation in the sum of ` 2.34 lacs to the complainant, the parties
have amicably resolved their disputes. He also does not oppose the
prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner for compounding of
the offence under Section 138 of the Act and disposing of the instant
revision petition accordingly.
4. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and
the concurrence shown by learned counsel for both the parties, as also
the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in A.T.
Sivaperumal's case (supra) and in A.J. Asana's case (supra), the
instant revision petition is allowed. The offence under Section 138 of
the Act is compounded and the judgment of conviction dated
13.04.2018 and order of sentence dated 16.04.2018 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad as well as the judgment
dated 24.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Faridabad are set aside.
5. Needless to say, the parties shall remain bound by the terms
of settlement so arrived at between them.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
JUDGE
March 18, 2024
rps
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
