Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhchain Singh vs M/S Tara Chand Dinesh Kumar And Others on 9 May, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065323
CRM-20180 and 20181 of 2024
in CRR-765-2024
::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-20180 and 20181 of 2024
in CRR-765-2024 (O & M)
Date of decision: 09.05.2024
Sukhchain Singh .... Petitioner
V/s
M/s Tara Chand Dinesh Kumar and ors.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur, Advocate,
and Mr. Naresh Paul Chandel, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ritesh K. Sharma, Advocate,
for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Rupinder Singh Jhand, Addl.A.G., Haryana,
for respondent No.3.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
CRM-20180-2024
This is an application for advancement of the next date of
hearing i.e. 29.07.2024 to some earlier date.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed.
The next date of hearing fixed in the main case is advanced to today itself
and the matter is taken up for hearing.
CRM-20181-2024
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065323
CRM-20180 and 20181 of 2024
in CRR-765-2024
::2::
The application for placing on record a compromise and
affidavit of respondent No.2 as Annexure A-3 and A-4, is allowed as prayed
for subject to all just exceptions. The same are taken on record.
CRR-765-2024
The present revision petition has been filed against the
judgment dated 05.02.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Kurukshetra, vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11/12.02.2021 passed by
the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pehowa, has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant
No.1/respondent No.1-M/s Tara Chand Dinesh Kumar was a proprietorship
firm and complainant No.2/respondent No.2-Dinesh Kumar was its sole
proprietor. The complaints used to advance money to its customers/provides
financial help in anticipation to bring their agriculture produce to the
commission agency of the complainants. Accused/petitioner-Sukhchain
Singh was also one of the customers at the shop of complainant No.1 for the
last three years and used to sell his agricultural produce through the
commission agency of the complainants and used to take advances from
complainants to satisfy his agricultural and domestic needs. The
complainant No.1 opened a current mutual and running account of accused
in his account book in the name of accused. The accused undertook to pay
interest on the amount of advance remaining unpaid which was the
customary rate of interest in the Anaj Mandi, Pehowa. On 09.05.2017, an
amount of Rs.21,59,390/- was due against the accused. Thereafter, on
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065323
CRM-20180 and 20181 of 2024
in CRR-765-2024
::3::
15/.05.2017, for part payment and in discharge of his existing liabilities, the
accused had issued a cheque bearing No.536508 dated 15.05.2017 for a sum
of Rs.19,60,000/- from his bank account No.4096000100045043 drawn at
Punjab National Bank, SST Nagar, Patiala, IFSC Code PUNB0409600 in
favour of the complainant No.1 and assured that the cheque would be
honoured as and when presented in the bank. On presentation of the
aforesaid cheque for encashment, the same was dishonoured and received
back with the remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide information letter dated
18.05.2017. The accused was served with a legal notice dated 07.06.2017
for the repayment of the aforesaid amount but he failed to make the
payment, leading to initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. In the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the complainant, the petitioner-accused was
summoned to face trial. The evidence was led and ultimately, the accused-
petitioner was held guilty and accordingly, convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to
pay a compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- and in default of the
payment of the compensation to further undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 06 months.
4. Aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions
Judge, Kurukshetra, which came to be dismissed on 05.02.2024.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065323
CRM-20180 and 20181 of 2024
in CRR-765-2024
::4::
5. Still aggrieved, the present revision petition has been preferred
by the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during the
pendency of the revision petition, a compromise (Annexure A-3) has been
effected between the parties and an affidavit of Mohak Gupta, the legal
representative of respondent No.2-Dinesh Kumar (since deceased), the sole
proprietor of the complainant firm, (A-4) in this regard has been placed on
record. He contends that the parties have amicably settled the dispute with
intervention of respectable persons of the society and in the affidavit
(Annexure A-4) it has been clearly stated that the complainant-firm has
received the payment through Rattan Singh brother-in-law of the petitioner-
accused Sukhchain Singh and nothing is due towards him. In view of
Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 320
Cr.P.C. where a settlement has been effected, the offence under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded on account
of the fact that a mutual compromise has been effected between the
parties..
6. The learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 alongwith the
learned State counsel for respondent No.3 contend that as the matter has
been settled between the parties, they have no objection if the prayer made
in the application for compounding the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is
allowed and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
8. This Hon'ble Court in 'Ramesh Chander Vs. State of Haryana
and another, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 245' held as under:-
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065323
CRM-20180 and 20181 of 2024
in CRR-765-2024
::5::
"4. As per the provisions of Section 147 of the Act, the
offence under Section 138 is compoundable. Section 147 reads
as under:
"Offence to be compoundable-
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973(2 of 1974), every offence punishable
under this Act shall be compoundable".
5. The compounding of the offence under Section 138 can be
done during the trial of the case as well as by the High Court or
Court of Session while acting in the exercise of its power of
revision under Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code Reference
may be made to Section 320(6) Criminal Procedure Code in
this regard.
6. Further, under Section 320(8) Criminal Procedure Code
the composition of an offence shall have the effect of
acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been
compounded."
9. This Court in 'Vatsa Electronics Vs. Pala Ram & Anr. decided
on 09.03.2022 in CRR-1585-2019' has also held that once a settlement is
being effected, then in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act and Section 320 Cr.P.C., the accused ought to be acquitted as the offence
stands compounded.
10. In view of the above, since, the parties have voluntarily settled
the disputes between themselves, it is a fit case for allowing them to
compound the offence.
11. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and subject to
payment of 15% of the cheque amount of Rs.19,60,000/- to be deposited
with Spinal Rehab Centre, Chandigarh Plot No.1, Madhya Marg, Sector 28-
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065323
CRM-20180 and 20181 of 2024
in CRR-765-2024
::6::
A, Chandigarh, 0172-4610311, the judgment dated 05.02.2024 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, as well as the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 11/12.02.2021 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Pehowa, are hereby set aside. The petitioner is
acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
12. The petitioner is ordered to be released forthwith in case he is
not required in any other case.
13. Since the main petition has been disposed of no order needs to
be passed in the pending application(s), if any,
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
May 09, 2023
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
