IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Rev.2579 of 2008 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : DECEMBER 17, 2008
SIKANDER VERMA & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Mr. Ishwar Lal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr. HS Brar, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
CRM 57927 of 2008
This application has been filed under Section 482, Code of
Criminal Procedure, with a prayer that the main case (Criminal Revision
No.2579 of 2008) be taken up for hearing today. The other prayer made is
that impugned judgment dated 26.7.2006, passed by the trial court and
judgment dated 26.11.2008, passed by the appellate court, be set aside in
view of the fact that the disputes have been settled and the offence is
compoundable under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The complainant has already been paid the cheque amount to
Criminal Rev.2579 of 2008 (O&M) 2
his entire satisfaction.
The application is allowed.
Main case (Criminal Revision No.2579 of 2008) is taken up
for hearing, with the concurrence of both the sides.
Criminal Revision No.2579 of 2008
Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna, vide judgment
dated 26.7.2006 convicted petitioner No.1/accused for committing an
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for
short ‘the Act’). Vide order of sentence of even date, petitioner
No.1/accused has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years
with fine of Rs.5,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo simple
imprisonment for six months. A sum of Rs.30,000/- has also been
awarded as compensation to be paid to the complainant; in default of
payment of compensation, to undergo simple imprisonment for three
months.
An appeal was carried, which has been dismissed vide
judgment dated 26.11.2008. The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence have been maintained.
It has been pointed out that vide document executed on
1.12.2008 (Annexure P-1), the parties have settled all their disputes with
the intervention of respectables and elders in the society. The issue in
respect of cheque bearing No.438072 dated 20.12.2004, in the sum of
Rs.8 lacs, has been settled.
Respondent No.2-complainant, as identified by his counsel
Shri Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate, is present in person. The complainant
Criminal Rev.2579 of 2008 (O&M) 3
states that, indeed, the disputes have been settled and the cheque amount
has been received by him. The complainant, now, does not have any
grievance against the petitioners and would support if the offence is
compounded.
I have considered the issue.
Section 147 of the Act provides that every offence punishable
under the Act shall be compoundable.
The matter has been considered by the the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in Vinay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
(2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 305, and it has been held as under:-
“17. As observed by this Court in Electronics Trade &
Technology Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Indian
Technologists & Engineers (Electronics) (P) Ltd., (1996) 2
SCC 739, the object of bringing Section 138 in the statute
book is to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations
and credibility in transacting business on negotiable
instruments. The provision is intended to prevent dishonesty
on the part of the drawer of negotiable instruments in issuing
cheques without sufficient funds or with a view to inducing
the payee or holder in due course to act upon it. It thus seeks
to promote the efficacy of bank operations and ensures
credibility in transacting business through cheques. In such
matters, therefore, normally compounding of offences should
not be denied. Presumably, Parliament also realized this
aspect and inserted Section 147 by the Negotiable
Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions)
Act,2002. (ACT 55 of 2002). The said section reads thus:
“147. Offences to be compoundable.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence
Criminal Rev.2579 of 2008 (O&M) 4punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.”
18. Taking into consideration even the said provision
(Section 147) and the primary object underlying Section 138,
in our judgment, there is no reason to refuse compromise
between the parties. We, therefore, dispose of the appeal on
the basis of the settlement arrived at between the appellant
and the respondent.
19. For the foregoing reasons the appeal deserves to
be allowed and is accordingly allowed by holding that since
the matter has been compromised between the parties and the
amount of Rs.45,000/- has been paid by the appellant towards
full and final settlement to the respondent-bank towards its
dues, the appellant is entitled to acquittal. The order of
conviction and sentence recorded by all courts is set aside and
he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.”
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it
transpires that the cheque amount has already been paid by the accused to
the complainant. The complainant has recorded his satisfaction and
supported the plea raised on behalf of the accused for compounding of the
offence.
In view of the above, the revision petition is disposed of on
the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties. The judgment of
conviction and order of sentence recorded by the courts below is set aside
and the accused/petitioner No.1 is acquitted of the charge levelled against
him.
December 17, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE