Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjeet Kaur vs Ekam Singh And Another on 19 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039762
CRR-888-2023 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:039762 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
SR. No.264
CRR-888-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision:19.03.2024
Ranjeet Kaur
...Petitioner
Versus
Ekam Singh and another
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SHEKHAWAT
Present: Mr. Dhanpat Rai Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sumeet Singh Brar, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. M.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.
N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the
impugned judgment dated 15.02.2023 passed by the Court of Sessions
Judge, Bathinda and the judgment and order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda, whereby the petitioner was convicted
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. During the pendency of the present revision petition, the
petitioner moved an application bearing CRM-34496-2023 under Section
147 of the Act read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant
permission to the parties to compound the offence and for acquittal of the
petitioner on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-1).
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039762
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that with the
intervention of the respectables, the matter had been compromised between
the parties in terms of the compromise deed (Annexure P-1) and the entire
payment had been made to the respondent/complainant in the present case.
Consequently, it is prayed that the petitioner may be ordered to be acquitted,
on the basis of compromise in the present case.
4. A short reply has been filed by respondent No.1/complainant in
the present case.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1/complainant submits that the parties had amicably resolved all the
disputes and respondent No.1 had no objection in case the petitioner is
ordered to be acquitted by this Court on the basis of compromise. Learned
counsel further contended that the parties had entered into a compromise
with their free will and without any pressure or coercion. Even along with
short reply, the affidavit of respondent No.1 has also been filed, which was
already taken on record.
6. 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 the 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.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039762
7. 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 Act as endorsed in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra).
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 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 the present case, it is apparent that the petitioner is 56 years
old lady and her son Satpal Singh is a divorcee. Her minor son Manpreet is
also residing with her and she is a heart patient. Thus, taking a lenient view
in the matter, 15% of the cheque amount towards costs of litigation is
waived off in the interest of justice.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039762
10. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment dated
15.02.2023 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Bathinda and the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2021 passed by
the JMIC, Bathinda, are set aside and the parties are allowed to compound
the offence in terms of Section 147 of the Act and the petitioner is ordered to
be acquitted of the charge.
11. Pending application(s), if any, is also ordered to be disposed of.
(N.S. SHEKHAWAT)
19.03.2024 JUDGE
mks
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES / NO
Whether Reportable: YES / NO
4 of 4
