Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh vs M/S Mohinder Singh Hire Purchase on 8 November, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145896
CRM-14561-2024 in/and CRR-965-2010 (O & M)
::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-14561-2024 in/and
CRR-965-2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 08.11.2024
Sukhdev Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
M/s Mohindera Hire Purchase ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, for the respondent.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
CRM-7247-2020
The application for placing on record Annexure P-1 dated
10.05.2017, Annexure P-2 dated 10.08.2017 and Annexure P-3 dated
08.03.2017, is allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. The
same are taken on record.
CRR-965-2010 (O & M)
The present revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment
dated 01.02.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby
the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145896
CRM-14561-2024 in/and CRR-965-2010 (O & M)
::2::
27.11.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, has been
dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a truck
bearing No.HR-37-4071 under the hire purchase agreement from the
respondent/complainant and in order to discharge part of his debt/liability issued
a cheque bearing No.146462 dated 29.05.2003 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn
on Punjab National Bank, Taran Taran. As the cheque was dishonoured,
proceedings were initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. On culmination of the Trial, the petitioner came to be convicted and
sentenced by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar vide
judgment and order of sentence dated 27.11.2007 as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine RI/SI in default of
under RI/SI payment of fine
Sections
138 N.I. Act (RI) 01 year Rs.5000/- (RI) 04 months
4. The accused-petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be
dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment
dated 01.02.2010.
5. Thereafter, the instant revision petition was filed and the sentence of
the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 27.04.2010.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in parallel
proceedings of recovery initiated by the respondent, the petitioner had paid the
entire amount of the loan due towards him. Statements of both the parties were
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145896
CRM-14561-2024 in/and CRR-965-2010 (O & M)
::3::
recorded on 08.03.2017 that respective cases would be withdrawn. An execution
petition was also withdrawn. As the matter stood settled, an application was
moved under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for compounding of
the offence and in view of the compromise, the offence could be compounded
and the petitioner be acquitted of the charges framed against him.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, while not
disputing the factum of the statement of the counsel for the complainant being
recorded in parallel proceedings before the Civil Court that a compromise had
been arrived at, contends that as per another compromise, Rs.2,00,000/- still
remain to be paid in view of the pendency of the instant petition. A hand written
photocopy of a compromise has been shown to this Court. He, therefore,
contends that the offence could not be compounded as no such compromise had
been arrived at.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Admittedly, the petitioner was convicted by both the Courts and
preferred the instant petition. However, during the pendency of this petition, in
parallel civil proceedings, the following statement was made by the petitioner
and one Mehar Singh:-
"Joint statement of Sukhdev Singh son of 5. Chanan Singh and
Mehar Singh son of Gurbax Singh(JD/Respondents no.1 and 2) on
SA with counsel Sh. Vishal Gogna adv.
I have entered into compromise with all the DH/Applicant in
the present execution and the compromise has been effected
for a full and final amount of Rs.9,90,000/- in total and out of
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145896
CRM-14561-2024 in/and CRR-965-2010 (O & M)
::4::
which we have already paid a Sum of Rs.4,50,000/- already
in the present execution on different dates ie Rs.2,00,000/- on
28.11.2016, Rs.2,00,000/- on 23.1.2017, Rs.50,000/-on
8.2.2017. Today out of the remaining amount of Rs.5,40,000/-
today we have paid a demand draft bearing No. 023824
dated 23.2.2017 amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on
Central Bank of India branch Gehri Mandi and now it has
been settled that the remaining amount of Rs.3,90,000/- shall
be paid by both of us to DH/Applicant within a period of four
months from today in installments of Rs.1,00,000/- by
10.4.2017, Rs.1,00,000/- by 10.5.2017, and Rs,1,90,000/- by
10.7.2017 as per the compromise, DH/Applicant shall be
bound to withdraw all the litigation filed by him against all
the JD's /Respondents ie against both of us as well as against
respondent no.3 and 4 also in any competent court of Law
and we have heard the statement of DH/Applicant today in
the court in the present execution and we are ready and
willing to abide by the above said terms and conditions of the
above said compromise and we shall remain bound by the
same."
Based on the aforesaid statement dated 08.03.2017, the following
order dated 10.05.2017 was passed:-
"Sh. Vishal Sharma, Adv. counsel for DH suffered a
statement that he had received a demand draft of
Rs.1,00,000/- bearing No.005211 dated 27.4.2017 drawn on
AXIS Bank issued in the name of Mahindra Hire Purchases
on the behalf of DH as a part payment towards the
compromise amount.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145896
CRM-14561-2024 in/and CRR-965-2010 (O & M)
::5::
Sh. Sukhdev Singh JD suffered a statement that he had
handed over a demand draft of Rs.1,00,000/- bearing
No.005211 dated 27.4.2017 drawn on AXIS Bank issued in
the name of Mahindra Hire Purchases today as part payment
towards the compromise amount. He undertook that he will
further comply and make the remaining payment on
10.7.2017.
As per statements given by both the parties case stands
adjourned to 10.7.2017 for making next installment."
10. As the amount under the settlement had not been paid, an execution
petition had been filed which came to be withdrawn after the entire amount as per
the compromise deed dated 08.03.2017 had been paid. The copy of the said
order dated 10.08.2017 is reproduced hereunder:-
"Sh. Vishal Sharma, Adv. has filed memo of appearance on
behalf of DH stating that he has been telephonically
instructed by DH to receive the payments and to withdraw the
present execution. He vide separate statement received the
total amount as per the compromise deed dated 8.3.2017
executed between the parties in the present execution and
withdraw the present execution being fully satisfied. In view
of statement suffered by Ld. counsel for DH/applicant, the
present execution is dismissed as withdrawn. File be
consigned to the record room."
11. Apparently, in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties
as against the cheque amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, an amount of Rs.9,90,000/- has
already been paid. It was in those circumstances that a settlement had been
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145896
CRM-14561-2024 in/and CRR-965-2010 (O & M)
::6::
arrived at. The factum of a settlement had been admitted in collateral civil
proceedings for recovery. However, an unexhibited photocopy of a hand written
compromise has been shown to this Court which cannot be accepted as a genuine
document in view of the categoric statement of the parties before the Court
regarding a compromise having been arrived at.
12. In view of the aforementioned facts, the impugned judgments dated
01.02.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2007 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the
charges framed against him.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
November 08, 2024
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
6 of 6
