Jaswinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr
- Neutral2024:PHHC:108585
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 may be compounded by the accused and complainant even at the stage after conviction, provided the parties have settled their dispute and the accused has satisfied the complainant's claim, and in such circumstances the court may permit compounding and acquit the accused, notwithstanding the conviction. Where an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compounded after conviction, the court may, in exercise of its discretion and following the principle laid down regarding cost awards, impose a cost upon the accused as a condition of allowing the compounding, such cost being a reasonable percentage of the cheque amount in question.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
CRR-1432-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.08.2024
Jaswinder Singh ..... Petitioner Versus
State of Punjab and another .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Arora, DAG, Punjab. Ms. R.K. Grewal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)
1. Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
impugning the order of conviction dated 22.02.2023 passed by learned trial
Court and order dated 06.07.2024, whereby, appeal filed by the petitioner
against the order dated 22.02.2023, was dismissed.
2. The case as enumerated from the facts is that a complaint under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI Act)
was filed against the petitioner by respondent No.2 on the allegations that in
November 2016, the accused-petitioner requested complainant-respondent
No.2 to give an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- and thereafter, on 08.11.2016,
complainant-respondent No.2 advanced a loan of Rs.12,00,000/- to the
accused-petitioner. The petitioner assured to repay the said amount in the
first week of October, 2018. Thereafter, in order to discharge his legal
liability, the petitioner issued a cheque No.672291 dated 03.10.2018 for a
sum of Rs.12,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Branch Ropar.
However, on presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured with the remark
"Wrong Account Number". Legal notice was sent by the complainant to the
1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 28-08-2024 22:14:16 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:108585
CRR-1432-2024 -2-
petitioner, but the petitioner failed to make the payment of the cheque
amount and thus, a complaint was filed. On the conclusion of trial, the
petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two
years. The petitioner was also burdened with compensation to the tune of
cheque amount alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
issuance of cheque till the date of conviction. 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. Learned
Appellate Court, finding no merit in the appeal, dismissed the same by
upholding the conviction of the petitioner vide its order dated 06.07.2024.
Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present
revision petition challenging the above said orders.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that
during the pendency of the present petition the parties have settled the
dispute for Rs.12,00,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the complainant
and the said amount has been paid to complainant-respondent No.2 and now
nothing is due against them. He has placed on record the copy of demand
draft No.992675 dated 17.08.2024 amounting to Rs.12,00,000/- drawn on
Canara Bank, Rupnagar-II Branch, Rupnagar, which he handed over to
learned counsel for the complainant in Court today. He has further
submitted that once the parties have settled the dispute amicably, then in
view of the law settled, the petitioner be allowed to compound the offence
and he be acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. He has placed reliance on the law laid down by Hon'ble
2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 28-08-2024 22:14:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:108585
CRR-1432-2024 -3-
Supreme Court in Raj Reddy Kallem vs. The State of Haryana and
another, Law Finder Doc Id# 2557645, wherein, it has been held that there
is no bar to seek the compounding of the offence at later stage of criminal
proceedings including after conviction.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has affirmed the
contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted
that complainant-respondent No.2 has received the settled amount of
Rs.12,00,000/- and he has no objection, if the present petition is allowed.
5. As the parties have compromised the matter and have buried
the hatchet, no purpose would be served by punishing the petitioner, who
has already honoured the terms of the compromise, which fact has been
affirmed by learned counsel for respondent-complainant. In Raj Reddy
Kallem's case (supra), it has been held that the accused must try for
compounding of the offence at the initial stages instead of later stages,
however, there is no bar to seek the compounding of offence at later stage of
criminal proceedings including after conviction.
6. So keeping in view above facts and the law settled by Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the petitioner is allowed to compound the offence and he is
ordered to be acquitted of the charges framed against him. As a
consequences, the order dated 06.07.2024 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur and order dated 22.02.2023
passed by JMIC, Ferozepur, convicting and sentencing the petitioner under
Section 138 of the NI Act, are set aside.
7. While taking into consideration the observations made by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayad Babalal H.
3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 28-08-2024 22:14:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:108585
CRR-1432-2024 -4-
2010(2) RCR (Crl.) 851, the present revision petition is allowed subject to
deposit of cost of Rs.1,80,000/- (being 15% of the cheque amount) /within a
period of three months from today. The cost shall be deposited in the Court
of learned JMIC, Ferozepur within above-said period and on his doing so,
learned JMIC, Ferozepur will issue notice to the complainant and on his
appearance, the amount of cost will be released to him forthwith.
6. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the abovesaid amount
within three months from today, the order 06.07.2024 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur and order dated
22.02.2023 passed by JMIC, Ferozepur would become operational and the
present petition would be deemed to have been dismissed. Copy of this
order be sent to the Court of learned JMIC, Ferozepur for necessary action.
7. Revision petition is disposed of in above terms.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 22.08.2024 JUDGE sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 28-08-2024 22:14:17 :::
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free