Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhwinder Singh vs M/S Pkf Finance Ltd on 3 September, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115216
CRR-4155-2012 (O&M) and - 1-
CRR-4156-2012
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:115216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-4155-2012 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 03.09.2024
LAKHWINDER SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
M/S PKF FINANCE LTD
.....RESPONDENT
AND
2. CRR-4156-2012 (O&M)
LAKHWINDER SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
M/S PKF FINANCE LTD
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Ms. Tarranum Madan, Advocate for
Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Vralika Bassi, Advocate
for the respondent.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J
1. Vide this common order, I shall be disposing off, both the petitions
together, as common question of law is involed in both the petitions.
2 Both the afore-said revision petitions have been preferred against
judgment dated 27.11.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar
whereby, the appeal preferred against the orders dated 23.09.2010 passed by
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, vide which the petitioner was convicted and
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115216
CRR-4155-2012 (O&M) and - 2-
CRR-4156-2012
sentenced to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along-with
fine to the tune of Rs.5000/-, in complaint cases bearing No. 3030/2/2009 and
4335/2/2009, dated 05.07.2004, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1881'), has been upheld.
3. It is worthwhile to mention here that on 15.07.2024, it was averred by
the counsel for the petitioner that the parties have settled the matter and submitted
that the petitioner does not want to challenge his conviction on merits.
4. Accordingly, applications bearing CRM Nos. 35338 and 35339-2024
have been filed by the applicant/petitioners under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 147 of Act of 1881 for compounding of
the offences, as compromise has already been effected between the parties, which
has been reduced into writing vide compromise deed dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure
P-3).
5. The petitioner(s) stands convicted under Sections 138 of Act of 1881
vide judgment of conviction dated 23.09.2010 and vide order of the even date
passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, he was sentenced to undergo RI
for a period of one year along-with fine to tune of Rs.5000/- for commission of
offence under Section 138 of Act of 1881 and the appeal preferred against the afore-
said judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been dismissed vide
judgment dated 27.11.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar.
6. During the pendency of present revision petitions, the petitioner and
complainant have entered into out of Court settlement and the same has been
reduced into writing vide compromise deed dated 30.04.2024. Copy of, which has
been annexed with the applications as Annexure P-3.
7. The accused and complainant have amicably settled the matter between
them in terms of the compromise deed dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure P-3). A perusal
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115216
CRR-4155-2012 (O&M) and - 3-
CRR-4156-2012
of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion,
threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means. The complainant has
willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings. There is no
objection from the respondent in case present revision petitions are allowed.
8. In the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or
tranquillity, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or
involve matters concerning public policy. The rejection of compromise may lead to
ill will and moreover, the pendency of trial affects career and happiness. There is
nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous,
incorrigible, and professional offender. The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is
reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, and society. The
exercise of the inherent power for quashing the conviction, sentence and all
previous proceedings are justified to secure the ends of justice.
9. At the very initial stage of hearing, a question was raised on behalf of
the appellant as to whether an offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, could
be compounded under Section 147 of the said Act read with Section 320 Cr.P.C.
10. Since a specific power had been given to the parties to a proceeding
under the Negotiable Instruments Act under Section 147 to compound the offence,
there could be no reason as to why the same cannot be permitted after conviction.
11. Besides, Section 147 by Amending Act 55 of 2002. Such amendment
came into effect from 6 th February, 2003, and provided that notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence
punishable under the Act would be compoundable. In view of the non-obstante
clause, the provisions of Section 147 were given an overriding effect over the Code
and in view of the clear mandate given to the parties to compound an offence under
the Act, reference to Section 320 Cr.P.C. can be made for purposes of comparison
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115216
CRR-4155-2012 (O&M) and - 4-
CRR-4156-2012
only in order to understand the scope of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act.
12. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Apex Court rendered in
the case of "O.P. Dholakia vs. State of Haryana & Anr." [(2000) 1 SCC 762],
wherein it was held that since the petitioner had already entered into a compromise
with the complainant and the complainant had appeared through counsel and stated
that the entire money had been received by him and he had no objection if the
conviction already recorded under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is
set aside, the Hon'ble Judges thought it appropriate to grant permission, in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, to compound the offence. While doing
so, this Court also indicated that necessarily the conviction and sentence under
Section 138 of the Act stood annulled.
13. The said view has been consistently followed in the following cases;
(1) Anil Kumar Haritwal & Anr. vs. Alka Gupta & Anr. [(2004) 4 SCC 366]; (2)
B.C. Seshadri vs. B.N. Suryanarayana Rao [2004 (11) SCC 510] decided by a
three Judge Bench; (3) G. Sivarajan vs. Little Flower Kuries & Enterprises Ltd. &
Anr. [(2004 11 SCC 400]; (4) Kishore Kumar vs. J.K. Corporation Ltd. [(2004 13
SCC 494]; (5) Sailesh Shyam Parsekar vs. Baban [(2005 (4) SCC 162]; (6) K.
Gyansagar vs. Ganesh Gupta & Anr. [(2005) 7 SCC 54]; (7) K.J.B.L. Rama
Reddy vs. Annapurna Seeds & Anr. [(2005) 10 SCC 632]; (8) Sayeed Ishaque
Menon vs. Ansari Naseer Ahmed [(2005) 12 SCC 140]; (9) Vinay Devanna Nayak
vs. Ryot Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd. [(2008) 2 SCC 305], wherein some of the earlier
decisions have been noticed; and (10) Sudheer Kumar vs. Manakkandi M.K.
Kunhiraman & Anr. [2008 (1) KLJ 203], which was a decision of a Division
Bench of the Kerala High Court, wherein also the issue has been gone into in great
detail.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115216
CRR-4155-2012 (O&M) and - 5-
CRR-4156-2012
14. The golden thread in all these decisions is that once a person is allowed
to compound a case as provided for under Section 147 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, the conviction under Section 138 of the said Act should also be set
aside. In the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak (supra), the issue was raised and after
taking note of the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C., it was held that since the matter
had been compromised between the parties and payments had been made in full and
final settlement of the dues of the Bank, the appeal deserved to be allowed and the
appellant was entitled to acquittal. Consequently, the order of conviction and
sentence recorded by all the courts were set aside and the appellant was acquitted of
the charge leveled against him.
15. The object of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which would not in the strict sense
of the term apply to a proceeding under the Act of 1881, gives the parties to the
proceedings an opportunity to compound offences mentioned in the table contained
in the said section, with or without the leave of the court, and also vests the court
with jurisdiction to allow such compromise. By virtue of Sub-Section (8), the
Legislature has taken one step further in vesting jurisdiction in the Court to also
acquit the accused/convict of the offence on the same being allowed to be
compounded. Inasmuch as, it is with a similar object in mind that Section 147 has
been inserted into the Act of, 1881, by amendment, an analogy may be drawn as to
the intention of the Legislature as expressed in Section 320(8) Cr.P.C., although, the
same has not been expressly mentioned in the amended section to a proceeding
under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act.
16. As far as the non-obstante clause included in Section 147 of the Act of
1881 is concerned, the Act of 1881 being a special statute, the provisions of Section
147 will have an overriding effect over the provisions of the Code relating to
compounding of offences.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115216
CRR-4155-2012 (O&M) and - 6-
CRR-4156-2012
17. It is true that the application under Section 528 of BNNS, 2023 read
with Section 147 of the Act of 1881 has been made by the parties after the
proceedings had been concluded before the Appellate Court. However, Section 147
of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under
Section 138 even at the appellate stage of the proceedings.
18. Accordingly, I find no reason to reject the application under Section
528 of BNNS, 2023 read with Section 147 of the Act of 1881
20. Since the parties have settled their disputes, in keeping with the spirit
of Section 147 of the Act of 1881, this Court allows the parties to compound the
offence, set aside the judgment of the courts below and acquit the petitioner of the
charges against him.
21 Both the revision petitions, as well as applications seeking
compounding of offences are, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
03.09.2024 JUDGE
sham
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
