Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Kumar Saxena vs M/S A.S. Cement Stores on 6 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032283
CRR-903-2023(O&M) 1
117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-903-2023 (O&M)
Decided on : 06.03.2025
Pawan Kumar Saxena .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
M/s A.S. Cement Stores .....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.
Present: Mr. Roopam Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Arvinder Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)
1. Present revision petition has been filed against the judgment
dated 22.03.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Fatehgarh Sahib in CIS No. CRA-228-2018, titled as 'Pawan Kumar
Saxena Vs. M/s A.S. Cement Store, whereby appeal filed against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.09.2018 passed by
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, convicting the petitioner
for committing offence under Section 138 of NI Act was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half year and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, was dismissed.
2. During the pendency of the revision petition before this
Court, dispute between the parties was amicably resolved, and thereupon,
on 04.03.2025, following order was passed by this Court:-
"1. Petitioner Pawan Kumar Saxena was convicted by the
Courts below for committing an offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act") and
accordingly was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of one and half year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032283
in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.
This is how the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing
instant criminal revision petition.
2. By way of filing CRM-11812-2024, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the monetary dispute has already been
resolved between the parties, i.e. petitioner herein, on the one
side, and the respondent M/s A.S. Cement Stores through its
proprietor, on the other side. The disputed amount has already
been paid and, therefore, the present revision petition is to be
disposed of having the offence been compounded under Section
147 of the Act.
3. Though formal notice was not issued in the present
application but the matter has been resolved and the learned
counsel representing the sole respondent is present, who confirms
the statement made by the petitioner's counsel. He further
submits that the monetary dispute has been completely resolved
and no claim of the respondent is left undecided vis-à-vis the
applicant-petitioner Pawan Kumar Saxena. Therefore, he submits
that he has no objection if the present revision petition is
disposed of by allowing compounding of the offences).
The respondent is directed to file affidavit confirming the
aforesaid facts on oath.
List on 05.03.2025.
To be shown in the urgent list. "
3. Mr. Arvinder Singh, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf
of respondent No.2 and filed affidavit of Lavender Kumar Singhi
(Proprietor of M/s A.S. Cement Store)in the Court today. Same is taken
on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place with
the paper-book.
Counsel refers to paragraph No. 4 of the affidavit dated
05.03.2025, wherein, it has been categorically stated by the deponent
"that the compromise deed dated 04.04.2023 was entered into by the
deponent with his free will and without any coercion or pressure from
anyone while being in sound state of Mind". Counsel also submits that
complainant has no objection, if the application for compounding of the
offence is allowed and judgment dated 22.03.2023 is set aside.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032283
4 Reliance is placed upon the Full Bench of this Court in
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3)
RCR (Criminal) 1052, has observed as under:-
"(28) To conclude, it can safely be said that there can
never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed
to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the
one which has been incorporated in the Section itself, i.e.,
"to prevent abuse of the process of any Court" or "to secure
the ends of justice".
(29) In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs.
Kaushalya Sawhney and others, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J.
aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the
following words:
"The finest hour of justice arrives
propitiously when parties, despite falling apart,
bury the hatchet and weave a sense of
fellowship of reunion."
(30) The power to do complete justice is the very
essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It
cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave
to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the
standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of
such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it
while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends
of justice.
(31) No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9)
of the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle
down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
(32) The compromise, in a modern society, is the
sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the
soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in
turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it
truly is "finest hour of justice". Disputes which have their
genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters,
commercial transactions and other such matters can safely
be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but
this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases.
There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032283
exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any
premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the
cause of justice may throw up during the course of a
litigation.
(33) The only inevitable conclusion from the above
discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C.
which can affect the inherent power of this Court under
Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to
matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power
to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable
offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the
Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure
the ends of justice.
(34) The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is
to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of
process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor
the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or
exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case. The power under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High
Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and
caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection
and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary
effective instrument to maintain and control social order.
The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving
peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society.
Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two
warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and
prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give
full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent
to lawful composition of the society or would promote
savagery."
5. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner has also placed
reliance on the judgment(s) of:
i) Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and
another, (2014) 6 SCC 466; and Ramgopal and
another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021
SCC Online SC 834;
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032283
ii) a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
Sube Singh and another v. State of Haryana and
another, 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 102; and
iii) a recent judgment passed by this Court in the case of
Lakhbir Singh v. State of Punjab and another
(CRA-S2065-SB-2007, decided on 14.02.2023 : Law
Finder Doc ID #2138925).
6. Thus, on the basis of cited judgments counsel submits that
in view of the compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties; by
compounding the offence, proceedings can be quashed for the offence in
question.
7. Since, the dispute has already been resolved, the offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is ordered to be
compounded. Thus, CRM-11812-2024 in CRR-903-2023, is allowed, and
resultantly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by
the Court(s) below, is ordered to be considered inoperative and of no
consequence for all intent and purposes.
8. Present revision petition stand disposed of, with the
aforesaid observations.
9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
06.03.2025 JUDGE
Rashmi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
