Vinod Kumar vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. And Anr

CRR No.2428 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.12.2024

Vinod Kumar ...Petitioners

Versus

HDFC Bank Limited and another ...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:- Mr. Rhythem Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tarunjit Singh Grewal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.

*****

RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)

CRM-47716-2024

Instant application has been filed for condonation of delay of

99 days in filing the revision petition.

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is

allowed and delay of 99 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

CRR-2428-2024 (O&M)

1. Instant petition has been filed praying for setting aside the

impugned judgment dated 23.05.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge,

Fazilka and impugned judgment dated 24.03.2023 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar, District Fazilka.

1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2024 00:02:46 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:170980

CRR No.2428 of 2024 -2-

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 simple imprisonment for a period of two years and

further to pay compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- under Section 357 Cr.P.C.

by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar vide order dated

24.03.2023, and the same was affirmed by learned Sessions Judge,

Fazilka vide order dated 23.05.2024. However now both the sides have

amicably resolved their inter se dispute as the whole amount due has

already been paid to the complainant-Bank. He prays for compounding

the offence and setting aside the order dated 23.05.2024 passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Fazilka and order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar.

3. Mr. Tarunjit Singh Grewal, Advocate has appeared and filed

his power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.1 today in the Court

and the same is taken on record. He has affirmed the factum of

compromise and also suffered a statement before this Court that the loan

amount is satisfied. He has stated that he has no objection if the present

petition is allowed, offence is compounded and orders, dated 24.03.2023

and 23.05.2024 are quashed.

4. The case as enumerated from the facts and circumstances of

the case is that a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed

against the petitioner by respondent No.1 on the allegations that the

petitioner/accused had executed loan agreement and other relevant

documents in favour of complainant Bank and undertaken to make

2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2024 00:02:47 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:170980

CRR No.2428 of 2024 -3-

repayment of loan in terms of agreement and in case of default of any

installment, complainant Bank would have the right to recover whole of

the loan amount along with interest in lump-sum from him through

appropriate legal process. 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.000003 dated 29.06.2018 amounting to Rs.7,20,000/-, which was

dishonored by the Bank for want of insufficient funds vide its memo

dated 29.06.2018. Legal notice dated 18.07.2018 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.

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

sentenced under Section 138 of the NI Act to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of two years. The petitioner was also burdened

with compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- to be payable to the complainant.

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded by learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Abohar, the petitioner assailed the same by way of

filing an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Fazilka. Learned

Sessions Judge, finding no merit in the appeal, dismissed the same on

23.05.2024 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.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that

after dismissal of the appeal, the matter has been compromised and the

3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2024 00:02:47 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:170980

CRR No.2428 of 2024 -4-

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 law settled, the petitioner be allowed to compound the

offence and he be 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.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has

affirmed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and

has submitted that the Bank has received the amount as per the

compromise and have no objection, if the present petition is allowed.

8. 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.

9. So keeping in view above facts and the law settled by

Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner is allowed to compound the

4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2024 00:02:47 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:170980

CRR No.2428 of 2024 -5-

offence and he is ordered to be acquitted of the charges framed against

him. As a consequences, the order dated 23.05.2024 passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Fazilka and order dated 24.03.20213 passed by

the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Abohar, convicting and

sentencing the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act, are hereby set

aside.

10. Present petition is allowed. The petitioner be set at liberty if

not required in any other case. Pending applications, if any, also stand

disposed of.

18.12.2024 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) rittu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

5 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2024 00:02:47 :::