Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subash Chander Amrohi vs Bank Of India And Anr on 13 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148579
CRR-2797-2011
2011 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
112
CRR-2797-20112011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.11.2024
Subhash Chander Amrohi ...Petitioner
Versus
Bank of India and another ...Respondents
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate
for respondent No. 1-Bank.
Ms. Ruchika
hika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab
for respondent No. 2-State.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. CRM-31771
31771-2024
Allowed as prayed for.
Annexure P-99 is taken on record.
2. CRM-31772
31772-2024
Prayer in this application is for compounding the offence in view
of the fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute.
Since the prayer made in this application has direct bearing on
the main revision petition, the application is disposed ooff and let the main case,
which is also listed today, be taken up.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148579
CRR-2797-2011
2011 (O&M) -2-
3. CRR-2797
2797-2011 (O&M)
The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment
of conviction and order on quantum of sentence, both dated 29.04.2008,
29.04.2008
passed by the Court of learned
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar in
complaint bearing No. 320/2004, titled as Bank of India vs. Subhash
Chander Amrohi,
Amrohi, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (for short 'N. I. Act'),
Act') whereby the petitioner was held guilty for
commission of offence punishable under the aforesaid section and was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to
pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-,
5,000/ , in default of which, he was directed to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment
imprisonment for one month. The petitioner has also laid
challenge to the judgment dated 29.10.2011
29.10.2011, passed by the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Amritsar, whereby the appeal of
the petitioner had been dismissed.
4. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this
revision petition are that the petitioner availed a loan of Rs. 72,000/
72,000/- from
respondent No. 1-Bank
1 Bank upon execution of several documents. There was an
outstanding balance of Rs.63,164/-
Rs.63,164/ against
ainst the petitioner. Towards the part
payment of said amount, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No. 096669
dated 14.11.2003 for Rs. 63,000/-
63,000/ drawn on complainant
complainant-bank
bank with an
assurance that the same would be honoured on presentation but it dishonoured
dishonoure
due to 'insufficient funds'. He was served with a legal notice dated
27.11.2003 but he failed to make payment within the time stipulated.
Aggrieved from the same, respondent No.1/complainant
No.1/complainant-Bank
Bank filed the
aforesaid complaint under Section 138 of N. I. A
Act,
ct, in which, the petitioner
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148579
CRR-2797-2011
2011 (O&M) -3-
was held guilty and sentenced
sentence as mentioned above. His appeal too was
dismissed by the learned appellate Court. Hence, the present revision petition.
During the pendency of this petition, the sentence of the petitioner was
suspended, vide order dated 12.12.2011 and since then, he is on bail.
5. Now the petitioner has filed aforesaid application bearing
number CRM-31772-2024
CRM for compounding the offence for which he has
been held guilty and convicted.
6. It is argued by learned counsel
unsel for the petitioner that an amicable
settlement has
ha been arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No. 1-
Bank, vide Annexure P-9.
P 9. In pursuance of the said settlement, tthe
he entire
disputed amount including the amount of cheque in question has been given
by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1-Bank
Bank.. It is submitted that respondent
No. 1 also admits the factum of the above stated settlement having been
arrived between the parties and about receipt of entire disputed amount and
therefore, hee deserves to be granted permission to compound the offence.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1/complainant
1/complainant-Bank
Bank has
affirmed the factum of receiving the entire disputed amount including the
amount of cheque in question from the petitioner and has submitted that he
has no objection if the offence is compounded in favour of the petitioner and
the judgment of conviction and order of
of sentence recorded by learned trial
Court and affirmed by learned appellate
ppellate Court are quashed and set aside.
8. Section 147 of N. I. Act makes all offenc
offences under this Act as
compoundable offences. It is well settled proposition of law by now that in
view
ew of the provisions contained under this Section read with Section 320 of
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148579
CRR-2797-2011
2011 (O&M) -4-
Cr.P.C., a compromise arrived inter se parties can be accepted and the offence
committed under Section 138 of N.
N I. Act, can be ordered to be compounded
even after conviction. Reference
Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment
dated 02.03.2022 pronounced by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in
Criminal Misc. (main) petition No. 107 of 2022 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
titled as Hiranand Shastri Vs. Ram Rattan Thakur and another
another, wherein
herein it
was observed that the judgment of conviction recorded under Section 138 of
N. I. Act can be recalled, in view of the specific provisions contained under
Section 147 of the Act, which provide for compounding of offence allegedly
committed under Section
Se 138 of N.I. Act. Similar proposition of law was laid
down in the judgment dated 21.12.2021 in CRM-M-No. 2499-2021 in Geeta
Devi Vs. Surinder Singh and another',
another', wherein it was observed by the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh that the Court has ample powers under Section
147 of N.I. Act to compound the offence in those cases, where the accused
already stands convicted. Reference can also be made to the authority cited as
Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013 (4) R.C.R.
102 wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that even
(Criminal)) 102,
after the conviction, if the parties have settled the dispute amicably and have
decided to live in peace and harmony, this Court, in exercise of powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., can compound the offence.
9. In Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed babalal H. 2010(2) RCR
(Criminal) 851,,
851,, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down several guidelines
with regard to the proceedings conducted in connection with complaints filed
under Section 138 of NI Act. It was observed that the interest of the
complainant lied primarily in recovering the money rather than seeing the
t
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148579
CRR-2797-2011
2011 (O&M) -5-
drawer of the cheque in jail with respect to the offence of dishono
dishonourr of the
cheque and it is compensatory aspect of the remedy which should be given
priority over the punitive aspect. In Raj Reddy Kallen Vs. State of Haryana
and another (2024) 5 SCR 203,
203, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court
that keeping in mind that 'compensatory aspect,' of remedy shall have priority
over the 'punitive aspect',
aspect', courts should encourage compounding of offences
under the N..I. Act, if the parties are willing to do so.
10. In the instant case, as discussed above, the parties have settled
settl
their dispute amicably,
amicably in pursuance of which, the entire disputed amount
amou
including the amount of cheque in question has been paid by the petitioner to
respondent No. 1/complainant-Bank.
1/complainant Bank. This fact is affirmed by learned counsel
for respondent No. 1. He has stated that the complainant has no objection if
the offence is compounded.
compoun This amicable settlement has arrived at between
the parties after passing of judgment dated 29.10.2011 by the learned
appellate
ppellate Court. There is no doubt that the petitioner and respondent No.
1/complainant have reached at a settlement permissible by law. This Court
has also satisfied itself regarding the genuineness of the settlement.. As such,
in the considered opinion of this Court, the conviction of the petitioner would
not serve any purpose and is required to be set aside. In the light of the
judicial
udicial precedents as referred to above and the attendant facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
offence deserves to be compounded in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly,
the present petition is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of
quantum of sentence,
sentence both dated 29.04.2008 passed by the learned trial
Magistrate as well as the judgment dated 29.10.2011 passed by the learned
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148579
CRR-2797-2011
2011 (O&M) -6-
appellate Court are set aside. The offence for which the petitioner was
convicted stands compounded and the petitioner is acquitted on account of
such compounding.
11. Since the main petition has been disposed of, pending
application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
13.11.2024 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
