CRR-558-2020 (O&M)

-1-

112

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

CRR-558-2020 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 12.03.2020

****

Amit Phull

..... Petitioner

Versus

Yograj Chaudhary and another

..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA

Present:

Mr. Mikhail Kad, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Sumeet Puri, Advocate,

for respondent No.1-complainant.

Mr. Avtar Singh Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab,

for respondent No.2-State.

SUDIP AHLUWALIA

J.

(ORAL)

[1].

In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of

judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 28.02.2018, passed by

the Court below, i.e. Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangrur, and the

order dated 04.02.2020 of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby

his appeal has been dismissed.

[2].

The petitioner was convicted of the offence under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act in a complaint case bearing No.17, dated

10.03.2015, and was sentenced accordingly. His appeal against such

judgment of conviction was also dismissed. Thereafter, the instant petition

has been filed.

[3].

During the pendency of this revision petition, the parties

concerned have arrived at compromise.

[4].

Seen Office Report and copy of the receipt No.2007 dated

BHUMIKA BHATI

2020.03.12 17:45

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR-558-2020 (O&M)

-2-

05.03.2020, showing payment of `25,500/-, which is 15% of the disputed

cheque amount, is deposited before the Superintendent, High Court,

Chandigarh in compliance of the last order. Ld. Counsel has also filed

photostat copy of the concerned receipt.

[5].

Complainant/respondent No.2 is represented by his Counsel,

who does not oppose the compromise

[6].

Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and

another”, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 and “Narinder Singh and Others

Vs. State of Punjab and Another”, (2014) 6 SCC 466, has opined that no

useful purpose can be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending,

since the complainant has himself compromised the dispute with the

petitioner/accused.

[7].

In the circumstances and in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in “Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H.”, 2010(5)

SCC 663, as also in “Gulab Das Vs. State of M.P.”, 2012 (1) R.C.R.

(Criminal) 220 and “Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan”, 2013 (11)

S.C.C. 511, while sustaining conviction of the petitioner for the offence

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the matter is disposed

off with a direction that no further sentence needs to be suffered by him nor

any fine needs to be paid, apart from the sentence already undergone by him.

Complaint case bearing No.17 dated 10.03.2015, and all consequential

proceedings arising therefrom, are also hereby quashed on the basis of

compromise qua the petitioner.

12.03.2020

(SUDIP AHLUWALIA)

Bhumika

JUDGE

1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes

2. Whether reportable:

No

BHUMIKA BHATI

2020.03.12 17:45

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document