Teja Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another

Teja Singh ......Petitioner Versus

State of Punjab and another ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present: Mr. Kunal R. Choksi, Advocate for Mr. S.P.S. Khaira, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL)

1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.

2023 praying for quashing of the complaint bearing No.NACT/71/2016

(Annexure P-1) Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

05.10.2019 passed by the Learned trial Court, Khamanon (Annexure P-2)

and Judgment dated 10.07.2024 passed by the Appellate Court, Fatehgarh

Sahib (Annexure P-3), P.S. Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib and all the

consequential proceedings arising therefrom on account of compromise

arrived at between the parties by way of One Time Settlement Scheme

(OTS) and for releasing the petitioner from judicial custody.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced to

undergo RI for a period of one year and further to pay compensation of

Rs.1,26,5000/- under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. by learned Sub Divisional

Judicial Magistrate, Khamanon vide order dated 05.10.2019, and the same

was affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide

1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 31-08-2024 21:07:22 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:113138

resolved their inter se dispute and an amount of Rs.3,26,000/- has been paid

to the complainant (Receipt of the paid amount is annexed as Annexure P-4).

He prays for compounding the offence and setting aside the orders dated

10.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib,

and order, dated 05.10.2019 passed by SDJM, Khamanon.

3. Notice of motion.

4. On asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. D.A.G.,

Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State whereas

Mr. Dharminder Singh, Assistant Manager, The Fatehgarh Sahib Central

Cooperative Bank Ltd. puts in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and

affirms the factum of compromise and also suffered a statement before this

Court regarding the compromise. He has also placed on record copy of his

Identity card as well as Aadhar Card and has stated that he has no objection

if the present petition is allowed, offence is compounded and orders, dated

05.10.2019 and 10.07.2024 are quashed.

5. The case as enumerated from the facts and circumstances is that

a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed against the petitioner

by respondent No.2 on the allegations that the petitioner/accused requested

the complainant/Bank for personal loan and applied for a loan of

Rs.2,30,000/- which was sanctioned to the petitioner on 19.04.2012 with

terms and conditions that the accused will pay back the loan amount in

monthly installments alongwith interest @ 15% P.A., which was to be

charged on half yearly basis for 07 years with condition that any revision in

the rate of interest shall be acceptable and binding upon the borrower and in

2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 31-08-2024 21:07:23 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:113138

of interest shall be charged on the defaulted amount. Thereafter, the

petitioner took the loan from the complainant/Bank. The petitioner

committed defaults in repayment of the scheduled amount and in order to

discharge the part of the liability, due and outstanding against the petitioner,

he issued a cheque bearing No.977204 dated 22.07.2016 amounting to

Rs.1,26,500/-, which was dishonored by the Bank for want of insufficient

funds vide its memo dated 27.07.2016. Legal notice dated 10.08.2016 was

issued and served upon the petitioner. Despite the receipt of the legal notice,

the petitioner did not clear the dues and hence, the complaint was filed.

6. On conclusion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and

sentenced under Section 138 of the NI Act to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one year. The petitioner was also burdened

with compensation of Rs.1,26,500/- to be payable to the complainant.

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded by learned Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khamanon, the petitioner assailed the same

by way of filing an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Fatehgarh Sahib. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, finding no merit in the

appeal, dismissed the same on 10.07.2024 by upholding the conviction and

sentence of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by

way of filing the present petition challenging the above said orders.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that after

dismissal of the appeal, the matter has been compromised and the amount, as

agreed in the compromise, has also been paid by the petitioner to the

complainant and now nothing is due against him. He has further submitted

that once the parties have settled the dispute amicably, then in view of the 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 31-08-2024 21:07:23 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:113138

acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of NI Act. He has placed reliance

on the law laid down by Hon'ble 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 a later stage of criminal proceedings including after conviction.

8. Mr. Dharminder Singh, Assistant Manager, The Fatehgarh

Sahib Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. appearing as representative of

respondent No.2 has affirmed the contentions raised by learned counsel for

the petitioner and has submitted that they have received the cheque amount

as per the compromise and have no objection, if the present petition is

allowed.

9. 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 the representative of respondent No.2/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.

10. 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 10.07.2024 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, and order dated 05.10.2019 passed by Sub

4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 31-08-2024 21:07:23 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:113138

petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act, are set aside.

11. While taking into consideration the observations made by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayad Babalal H.

2010(2) RCR (Crl.) 851', the present petition is allowed subject to payment

of costs of Rs.18,975/- (being 15% of the cheque amount of Rs.1,26,500/-),

to be deposited with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees'

Welfare Association, within two months from today.

12. Petitioner is directed to file receipt/proof of payment of

abovesaid amount of Rs.18,975/- in the office/Registry of this Court within

aforesaid period. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the abovesaid amount

within two months from today, the order, dated 10.07.2024, passed by

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, dismissing the appeal

filed by the petitioner as well as order, dated 05.10.2019 passed by learned

Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khamanon would become operational

and the present petition would be deemed to have been dismissed.

13. Petitioner, if in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not

required in any other case.

14. Present petition is allowed.

31.08.2024 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) ps-I JUDGE whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

5 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 31-08-2024 21:07:23 :::