Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lal Bahadur vs Mahinder Singh on 3 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061574
1
CRR No.2746 of 2023 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061574
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
252
CRM No.18273 of 2024 in/and
CRR No.2746 of 2023
Date of Decision: 03.05.2024
LAL BAHADUR ......Petitioner(s)
Vs
MAHINDER SINGH ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Gurinder Singh Dhillon, Advocate
for the non-applicant/petitioner.
Mr. Himmat Singh Sidhu, Advocate and
Mr. Parveen Jain, Advocate
for the applicant/respondent.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)
CRM-18273-2024
By way of present application filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., read
with Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for cancellation of suspension of
sentence order dated 30.11.2023 passed by this Court in favour of the non-
applicant/petitioner.
Upon notice, learned counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner appears
and hands over the cash amounting to Rs.35,000/- which has been due towards the
respondent; the same has been accepted by learned counsel representing the
applicant/respondent and he, thus, submits that now nothing remains due as the
entire payment against the cheque amount along with compensation in terms of
settlement arrived at between the parties stands paid.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061574
CRR No.2746 of 2023 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061574
In view of aforesaid position, the present application is disposed of
and with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the date of hearing of
the main case is preponed and the same is taken up today.
[1]. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment dated
14.11.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby the appeal
filed against the judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2019 and order of sentence
dated 11.12.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal stood
dismissed, thereby upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the Trial Court.
[2]. On account of dishonor of cheque for a total amount of Rs.1,00,000/-,
a complaint under Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 came
to be filed at the instance of respondent-complainant against the petitioner. On the
basis of evidence recorded, learned Trial Court vide judgment/order dated
06.12.2019, convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 and
sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The
complainant was also awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.
[3]. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed first appeal before the court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, which was dismissed vide judgment dated
14.11.2023, thereby upholding the judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2019 and
order of sentence dated 11.12.2019 passed by the Trial Court.
[4]. Impugning the aforesaid judgments passed by both the Courts below,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of present
revision petition, better sense has prevailed and the petitioner has discharged his
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061574
CRR No.2746 of 2023 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061574
entire liability towards respondent-complainant. Both the parties have entered into
a compromise before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court wherein
the respondent received a sum of Rs.45,000/- and today the balance payment of
Rs.35,000/- has been handed over to learned counsel representing the respondent in
Court. The factum of compromise has even been admitted by the learned counsel
representing respondent/complainant as such there is no outstanding balance
against the petitioner.
[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-
complainant having made the entire payment, offence under Section 138 of the NI
Act, thus, stands compounded. The aforesaid view is mainly derived from the
proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
"Ghanshyam Gautam and another vs. Usha Rani (since deceased) thr. LRs.,
passed in Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2024, SLP Crl. No.3289-2018, decided on
04.01.2024.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061574
CRR No.2746 of 2023 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061574
[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 to 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.
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
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061574
CRR No.2746 of 2023 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061574
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
judgments of conviction and orders of sentence passed by both the Courts below
are hereby set aside, resulting into acquittal of the petitioner.
[9]. All other pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
May 03, 2024 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
