The court can quash proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act if the accused compensates the complainant adequately, even without consent.

Judgment

Mr. Harpreet Singh Brar, J. :-

CRM No.22335 of 2023 in CRM-M No.43388 of 2019

Prayer in the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for placing on record the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jalandhar dated 10.03.2023 as Annexure P-9.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and Annexure P-9 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

MAIN CASES

1. This judgment shall dispose of all seven petitions as detailed above, as they arise from similar facts and circumstances. However, for the sake of brevity, facts are taken from CRM-M-43388-2019.

2. The petitioners in CRM-M No.43388 of 2019 have approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of Complaint No. NACT/32104/2013 titled as M/s Pragati Enterprises Vs. M/s K.K. Tanners (Annexure P-8), judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2018 passed by the learned JMIC, Jalandhar against the petitioners (Annexure P-1) and the impugned order dated 21.09.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed in CRA-104 of 2018 titled as M/s K.K. Tanners Versus M/s Pragati Enterprises & others pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar (NRI Court) whereby the application filed by the petitioners for compounding of the offence on payment of alleged due cheque amount along with costs to be assessed by the learned court has been dismissed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. The facts, in brief, are that petitioner no. 1 is a partnership firm and petitioner No.2 namely Girdhari Lal and one Daya Ram are partners in the said firm who are responsible for its day to day functioning. Respondent No.1-complainant is a supplier of leather chemicals and petitioner No.1 had been making purchases of the same from it on credit basis. According to the statement of accounts, till July, 2011, Rs. 48,90,717/- is owed to respondent No.1 by petitioner No.1. In order to discharge its legal liability, nine post-dated cheques for different dates, duly signed by petitioner No. 2, were issued in favour of respondent No.1. The cheque bearing No.702564 dated 01.12.2012 for Rs.1,00,000/- presented for encashment was dishonoured vide memo dated 28.12.2012 with the remarks- ‘opening balance insufficient.’ Thereafter, a legal notice dispatched on 16.01.2013 was served upon petitioner no. 1. However, petitioner no. 1 failed to make the requisite payment causing respondent no. 1 to lodge a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter ‘NI Act’) read with Section 420 of the IPC.

4. On the basis of material available on record, the accused were summoned and later admitted to bail. The proceedings against Daya Ram were stayed in pursuance of order dated 11.05.2016 passed by this Court in CRM-M-39632-2015. A notice of accusation under Section 138 of the NI Act was served upon petitioner no. 1 and 2 vide order dated 21.05.2016, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. After assessing the evidence on record, the petitioners were convicted vide judgment dated 30.01.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar and sentenced as under:

Further, in accordance with Section 357 of the Cr.P.C., the convicts were also ordered to pay compensation to the tune of the cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of issuance of cheque till the day of passing of the impugned judgement.

6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar, the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court. During the pendency of the said appeal, petitioners filed an application for compounding of offence without admitting their liability along with demand draft of Rs.1 lakh and further directing respondent No.1-complainant to accept the said amount