IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
M/s Swastic Pharma - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
M/s Dhanwantri Ayurvedic Sansthan - Respondent - Respondent
CRR-1203 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 01-02-2023
Negotiable Instruments Act - Compounding of Offence - Section 138 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner issued two cheques to the complainant, which got dishonoured. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was convicted and ordered to pay compensation. The petitioner appealed against the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant had been adequately compensated, despite not agreeing to compound the offence. The judgments of conviction and order of sentence were set aside, and all proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.
Issues: Whether proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be quashed/compounded after the complainant has accepted double the cheque amount and agreed to compound the offence, but subsequently backs out from the settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court can close proceedings if it feels that the complainant has been adequately compensated, even if the complainant refuses to compromise and compound the offence. The court can quash proceedings, including judgments of conviction, in the interest of justice, where a compromise has been arrived at in offences predominantly private in nature.
Final Decision: The judgments of conviction and order of sentence were set aside, and all proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing No. CRR-1203-2022 titled as M/s Swastic Pharma Versus Dhanwantri Ayurvedic Sansthan and CRR-1206-2022 titled as M/s Swastic Pharma Versus Dhanwantri Ayurvedic Sansthan. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CRR-1203-2022 as both these petitions are arising out of the same complaint.
2. The instant revision petitions have been filed against the judgment dated 03.02.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.07.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hisar Sahib, has been dismissed and the appeal preferred by the complainant/respondent for enhancement of sentence and compensation have been allowed.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the accused/petitioner has been dealing in the purchase of Ayurvedic Medicines from the complainant. It has been further averred that in order to discharge his liability, the accused/petitioner issued two cheques bearing No.694154 dated 11.10.2012 for a sum of Rs.20,000/- and another cheque bearing No.694156 dated 15.10.2012 for a sum of Rs.11,580/- drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Jind in favour of the complainant, with the assurance that the same will be honoured as and when presented with the Bank. However, the cheques in question on its presentation, by the complainant in his bank account with Punjab National Bank, Hisar got dishonoured from the drawer's bank with the remarks “funds insufficient” vide bank return memo dated 19.10.2012 and the complainant received the information on 05.11.2012. Thereafter, the complainant sent a registered legal notice to the accused/petitioner but the drawer failed to make the due payment within the stipulated period of 15 days despite receipt of the legal notice dated 08.11.2012.
4. Thereafter, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was filed, where the petitioner/accused was summoned to face the trial. The evidence was led and ultimately, he was held guilty and accordingly, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 06 months and was also ordered to pay the compensation of both the cheque amount i.e. Rs.20,000/- + Rs.11,580/-= Rs.31,580 to the complainant. In default of payment of compensation amount, the accused/petitioner was to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 03 months.
5. Aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar.
The complainant/respondent also preferred an appeal for enhancement of sentence and compensation amount. Both the appeals were decided vide a common judgment dated 03.02.2020. While the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, in the appeal of the complainant, the sentence was modified and the petitioner was ordered to pay double of the cheque amount vide common judgment dated 03.02.2020.
6. Still aggrieved, the instant petitions came to be filed by the petitioner before this Court.
7. During the course of proceedings, on 07.09.2022, the following order was passed:-
CRM-33047-2022
The application for placing on record a copy of the order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the Court of the JMIC, Hissar (Annexure P-1) is allowed as prayed for. The said order is taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place of the paper-book.
CRR-1203-2022 (O & M)
and CRR-1206-2022 (O & M)
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the total amount payable is Rs.31,580/- and the petitioner is ready and willing to pay double the aforesaid amount. He contends that, in that regard, he has brought a demand draft bearing No.042561 dated 21.01.2022 for a sum of Rs.63,160/- in the name of the respondent in the Court today. A copy thereof is
Shri Arun Atmaram Patil Versus Sandhya Arun Patil & others
M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited & another Versus Kanchan Mehta
Mohd. Shamim Versus Smt. Nahid Begum
Ram Lal & others Versus State of Haryana & another
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of promoting compromise and securing the ends of justice, especially in cases where the accused has remitted the entire liability an....
Generally the powers available under Section 482 of the Code would not have been exercised when a statutory remedy under the law is available, however considering the peculiar set of facts and circum....
(1) Offence of dishonour of cheque is fully compoundable.(2) Generally, powers available under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. would not be exercised when a statutory remedy under law is available.
The court held that a settlement payment can constitute compounding of an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, allowing for the quashing of the complaint even without the complainant's consent.
Dishonoured of Cheque - Amicable Settlement - Guidelines as laid down in case of Damodar S. Prabhu (Supra) and taking into account fact that parties have settled dispute amicably, in view of this cou....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.