Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 1033
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANJIV BERRY, J.
Rita Aggarwal – Petitioner
Versus
Rita Singla – Respondent
CRR-269 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 12-01-2024
Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate, for Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent
Compounding of offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is permissible when parties reach a compromise, subject to the payment of costs as per established guidelines.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Compounding of offences - Application for compounding of offences allowed subject to deposit of 15% of the cheque amount as costs - Previous conviction and sentence set aside upon compromise between parties - Guidelines from Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal, AIR 2010 (SC) 1907 followed. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Application for quashing of conviction - Quashing of conviction granted upon fulfillment of conditions for compounding. (Paras 1, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for 3 months and a fine of Rs. 5.00 lacs. A compromise was reached between the parties, and the complainant has received the due amount.
Findings of Court:
The application for compounding is allowed, and the previous conviction and sentence are set aside, subject to the deposit of 15% of the cheque amount.
Issues: Whether the offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can be compounded after a conviction has been made.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the guidelines from the Supreme Court regarding compounding of offences must be adhered to, allowing the application for compounding upon the deposit of costs.
Result: Application for compounding allowed.
JUDGMENT
Mr. Sanjiv Berry, J. (Oral)
CRM-53765-2023 has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.PC read with Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous) Act, 2002, for compounding of the offences under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short 'N.I. Act') and further quashing of the judgment of conviction dated 26.09.2018 and order of sentence dated 29.09.2018, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram.
2. Heard.
3. It is, inter alia, contended that in a complaint case i.e. CIS No. 10550-2016, titled as 'Rita Singla v. RitaAggarwal' preferred under Section 138 of the N. I. Act filed by the respondent-Rita Singla against the petitioner-Rita Aggarwal, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram, convicted and sentenced the present petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 03 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5.00 lacs vide judgment of conviction dated 26.09.2018 and order of sentence dated 29.09.2018. The same was challenged by the petitioner and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, while deciding the criminal appeal, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2018, dismissed the same preferred by the present petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the meanwhile with the intervention of the respectables, compromise has been effected between the parties and an amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs, which was deposited in the Registry of this Court out of which Rs. 1.5 lacs has already been withdrawn by the petitioner, as is mentioned in the order dated 02.04.2019 and another amount of Rs. 3.50 lakhs has been paid in the Court after re-validating the draft in terms of the order dated 23.11.2023. He further contends that this apart, the petitioner has further paid Rs. 25,000/- by way of demand draft No. 748274 dated 11.01.2024, which has been accepted by learned counsel representing the complainant-respondent in Court today. As such, she seeks permission for compounding of the offences.
5. Learned counsel representing the complainant-respondent has admitted the fact that the complainant has already received Rs. 5.00 lacs on earlier dates as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, besides receiving demand draft of Rs. 25,000/- paid today in Court and that he has specific instructions from the complainant-respondent that he has no objection in case permission to compound the offence is granted.
6. After hearing the respective submissions and perusing the record, the factual position as it emerges is that a criminal complaint under Section 138 of N.I Act had been filed against the petitioner by the respondent which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram, had convicted and sentenced the petitioner vide judgment of conviction dated 26.09.2018 and order of sentence dated 29.09.2018, thereby holding the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is not disputed that the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence {supra) was challenged by the petitioner unsuccessfully and the same was dismissed vide order dated 24.01.2019 in the appeal.
7. Aggrieved by the same, learned counsel for the petitioner had preferred the instant petition.
8. During the course of proceedings, settlement was effected between the parties and an amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs was paid to respondent, as has been mentioned by learned counsel for the petitioner and is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent. This apart amount of Rs. 25,000/- has further been paid in the form of demand draft which has been accepted in the Court today by learned counsel for the respondent.
9. Learned counsel representing the complainant-respondent has not opposed the request of the petitioner for compounding of the offences, as stated that she has clear instructions from the complainant-respondent in this regard.
10. This be the case, the case of the parties found fairly covered within the ambit of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed
