Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahinder Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 8 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064471
108
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 927 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 08.05.2024
Mahinder Singh
.......... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Ashish Sindher, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
CRM-20177-2024
Prayer in the present application moved on behalf of the
applicant-petitioner is for condonation of delay of 475 days in filing the
present revision petition.
It is, inter alia, contended that since the applicant happens to
be a poor person and being behind the bars, present revision petition could
not be filed in time. Moreover, a settlement has been arrived at between
the parties; thus, prayer is for condonation of delay in filing the present
revision petition.
Notice of the application.
Learned State Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent
No. 1, while learned counsel representing respondent No. 2 accepts notice
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064471
on behalf of his client. He has no objection against the prayer made in the
present application.
In view of the above as well as reasons mentioned in the
application, which make out sufficient cause, the same is allowed. The
delay of 475 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned.
MAIN CASE
The petitioner, by way of present petition, seeks setting aside of
the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby the appeal filed by him against the
judgment of conviction dated 13.07.2016 and order of sentence dated
15.07.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna
Nagar at Jagadhri, was dismissed.
[2] The petitioner was convicted in a criminal complaint No.2832
of 2013, dated 15.11.2013, titled "Nar Singh Yadav Versus Mahinder
Singh", under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for
short "the NI Act"), vide judgment dated 13.07.2016 and was sentenced
vide order dated 15.07.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
one year and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,30,000/- within two
months and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri on
19.10.2022. Hence, the present revision petition.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064471
[4] At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
matter has since been compromised vide deed dated 15.04.2024 (Annexure
A-1) and the settled amount has already been paid to respondent No. 2-
complainant, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be
a futile exercise and thus, not justified.
[5] Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on instructions, does not
dispute the aforesaid factual position and states that nothing remains due.
He also submits that he has no objection in case the present revision petition
is accepted on the basis of compromise (A-1).
[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 respondent No. 2-complainant by making the entire payment, offence
committed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act, thus, stand
compounded.
[9] Furthermore, following the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of "B.V. Seshaiah Versus The State of Telangana &
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064471
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.
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
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064471
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.
[11] The aforesaid order shall, however, be subject to payment of
costs of Rs. 2,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the Punjab &
Haryana High Court Bar Clerks' Association, Chandigarh with one week
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
[12] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed off.
May 08, 2024 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
'dk kamra' JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
