Punjab-Haryana High Court
Banta Ram vs State Of Haryana And Another on 30 September, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:132675
CRM-M-49329-2023 -1-
272 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-49329-2023
Decided on:30.09.2024
Banta Ram ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Jasvir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Nagar Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in the present petition is for compounding of the offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in complaint
No.NI-1304 of 2013, and further to quash the sentence of 1 year as awarded
to the petitioner vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
13.11.2018 (Annexure P-1) and judgment and order dated 05.01.2023 passed
by learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa upholding the said conviction, along with
all subsequent proceedings relating thereto or arising therefrom on the basis
compromise dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure P-4).
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that a complaint under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI Act)
was filed against the petitioners by respondent -Dalbir Singh on the
allegations that accused petitioner requested for Rs.10,00,000/- from the
complainant on the pretext of purchasing a land with an assurance to repay
the same within short time. The complainant believed the petitioner and
gave Rs. 10,00,000/- in cash to him in good faith. However, the petitioner
failed to repay the money despite several requests made by the complainant.
Then, the petitioner-accused issued a Cheque No.046735 dated 01.06.2012
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:132675
for Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank, Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa to the
complainant and assured its clearance. However, the said cheque was
dishonoured by the accused's bank with the remarks "insufficient funds"
vide memo dated 21.07.2012. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice
dated 08.08.2012 to the petitioner asking him for payment. Notice was sent
through registered post vide receipt No.2304 dated 08.08.2012. Despite the
notice, the petitioner did not pay/return the amount. Hence the complaint
was filed. On the conclusion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and
sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The petitioner was also
burdened with compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to be payable to the
complainant. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded by learned
JMIC, the petitioner assailed the same by way of filing an appeal before the
learned Appellate Court, Sirsa. Learned Appellate Court, finding no merit in
the appeal, dismissed the same by upholding the conviction and sentence
awarded to the petitioner vide its order dated 05.01.2023. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner filed revision petition before this Court bearing
No.CRR-518-2023, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated
19.04.2023. Thereafter, good sense prevailed and with the intervention of
the respectables, the parties entered into a compromise and decided to bury
the hatchet. Hence, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of
filing the present revision petition challenging the above said orders.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
compromise has been arrived at between the parties, which is placed as
Annexure P-4. He submits that as per the compromise arrived at between the
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:132675
parties, the petitioner has already paid 3,00,000/- to the complainant but at
the time of recording of statement, the complainant has backed out of the
same and now neither he is returning the money nor he is abiding by the
compromise arrived at between them. He submits that even otherwise, out of
one year imprisonment, the petitioner has already undergone 11 months
imprisonment. He has further stated that the complainant has now backed
out of the compromise and has refused to honour the terms of compromise,
although in terms of compromise, the petitioner has paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the
complainant. He has stated that the complainant has no right to back out of
the compromise once the petitioner has performed his part of settlement and
under these circumstances, the present petition is liable to be accepted and
the orders under challenge are liable to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has fairly submitted that
the complainant-respondent is not even picking his phone and he is unable to
contact him.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through
the file, it is clear that the present petition has been filed for compounding of
the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and
for setting aside the order dated 13.11.2018 (Annexure P-1) and order dated
05.01.2023, on the basis of compromise effected between the parties. As per
Annexure P-4, the petitioner has already paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the
complainant and the complainant pleaded no objection, if the orders under
challenge are quashed. Although the complainant has received an amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- from the petitioner yet he has backed out of the compromise
and now he is not coming forward to support the compromise in the present
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:132675
petition. The petitioner has already undergone 11 months of imprisonment
out of one year imprisonment.
6. Under these circumstances, the complainant cannot be allowed
to back out of the compromise especially when the petitioner has already
performed his part as agreed in the settlement/compromise. The fact
regarding receipt of Rs.3 lacs by respondent No.2 has not been denied by
either respondent No.2 or his counsel rather on 22.04.2024, respondent No.2
prays for some time to bring draft of Rs.3 lacs to return the same to the
petitioner. This shows that amount of Rs.3 lacs was actually received by
respondent No.2/complainant in lieu of compromise dated 14.09.2023 and as
such now he cannot be permitted to back out of the terms of the
compromise, specially when the petitioner has already performed his part of
the settlement by paying the amount of Rs.3 lacs to him. This Court finds
that resiling from the compromise by the complainant is immaterial and the
continuation of the present case would be an abuse of the process of the
Court.
7. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Lal and
others Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 823, has
held that when the parties have entered into a compromise, and the
complainant has backed out from the same, the FIR is liable to be quashed in
such like situation. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as
under:
"4. Learned counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mohd. Shamim Vs. Smt. Nahid Begum, 2005(1) RCR
(Criminal) 697: 2005(1) Apex Criminal 299(SC) contends
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:132675
that in view of the compromise having been entered into
between the parties and amount having been received by the
complainant, the continuation of proceedings is nothing but
misuse of the process of the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
14. This Court in Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal
and others, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 949(SC):2004(8)
Supreme 525, in almost a similar situation has quashed a
criminal proceeding against the husband, stating "Therefore,
we are of the opinion that the appellant having received the
relief she wanted without contest on the basis of terms of the
compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the
learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct
of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from
which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass
the respondents.
8. In view of the above said subsequent events and the
conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the process
of the Court if the criminal proceedings from which this
appeal arises is allowed to continue."
8. In view of the abovesaid facts and circumstances of the case
and the law settled in the abovesaid judicial precedent, the present petition is
allowed. Consequently, the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 alongwith subsequent proceedings including the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.11.2018 (Annexure
P-1) and judgment and order dated 05.01.2023 (Annexure P-2) are hereby
quashed qua the petitioner on the basis of compromise.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
30.09.2024 JUDGE
sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
