Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Kumar vs State Bank Of India on 14 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067494
109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 971 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.05.2024
Ajay Kumar
.......... Petitioner
Versus
State Bank of India
.......... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Piyush Setia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Somesh Gupta, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
CRM-21128-2024 in CRR-971-2024
Prayer in the present applications moved on behalf of the
applicant-petitioner is for condonation of delay of 215 days in filing the
present revision petition.
It is, inter alia, contended that since the applicant is an
illiterate person and being behind the bars, present revision petition could
not be filed in time. Moreover, the applicant has settled the matter with
the respondent-Bank under One Time Settlement (OTS) and nothing
remains due; thus, prayer is for condonation of delay in filing the present
revision petition.
Upon notice, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant
has no objection against the prayer made in the present application.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067494
In view of the above as well as for the reasons mentioned in
the application, which make out sufficient cause, the same is allowed.
The delay of 215 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned.
MAIN CASE
The petitioner, by way of present petitions, seeks setting aside
of the order dated 13.07.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Fazilka,
whereby the appeal filed by him against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 13.03.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
Ist Class, Abohar, was dismissed.
[2] The petitioner was convicted in a criminal complaint CIS No.
NACT-945-2018, dated 04.07.2018, titled "State Bank of India Versus Ajay
Kumar", under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for
short "the NI Act"), vide judgment dated 13.03.2023 and was sentenced
vide order of even date passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Abohar, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to
pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,85,000/- and in default thereof, to
further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
[3] Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid
judgment of conviction and order of sentence was also dismissed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Fazilka on 13.07.2023. Hence, the present revision
petition.
[4] At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
matter has since been compromised and the settled amount, after One Time
Settlement Scheme, has already been paid to the respondent-complainant,
hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be a
futile exercise and thus, not justified. Learned counsel has also placed on
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067494
record No Objection Certificate issued by the respondent-Bank in favour of
petitioner, annexed as Annexure P-1.
[5] Learned counsel for respondent-Bank, on instructions, does not
dispute the aforesaid factual position and states that nothing remains due.
He has produced a copy of letter of even number dated 10.05.2024, issued
by the respondent-Bank, stating that the case in hand may be withdrawn
against the petitioner on account of having settled the matter under One
Time Settlement Scheme 2023-24. Copy of the aforesaid letter dated
10.05.2024 is taken on record. He also submits that he has no objection in
case the present revision petition is accepted on the basis of settlement
arrived at between the parties.
[6] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the paper-book.
[7] A conjoint reading of Section 138 read with Section 147 of the
NI Act, makes it clear that every offence punishable under the NI 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."
[8] Applying the aforesaid proposition to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the petitioner having settled the dispute
with the respondent-Bank/complainant by making the entire payment,
offence committed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act, thus,
stand compounded.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067494
[9] Furthermore, following the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of "B.V. Seshaiah Versus 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 Court 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 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.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067494
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."
[10] Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts as well as keeping in mind
the law laid down in the aforementioned judgments, the petition is allowed
and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence (supra) passed by the
Courts below are hereby set aside. The petitioner is hereby acquitted in the
meaning of Section 320 (8) Cr.P.C. He be released from custody forthwith,
if not required in any other case.
[11] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed off.
May 14, 2024 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
'dk kamra' JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
