CRR-806-2010 (O&M)

-1-

239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRR-806-2010 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 23.02.2023

BALJIT KAUR

….Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR

…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER

Present :

Mr. S.K. Chawla, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Harjinder S. Sidhu, AAG, Punjab.

Ms. Nikita, Advocate for

Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate

for respondent No.2/complainant.

HARSH BUNGER, J. (Oral)

Petitioner-Baljit Kaur, has filed the present revision petition,

challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

06.10.2008 (wrongly mentioned as 06.08.2008 in the prayer clause) passed

by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot, upon a complaint bearing

No.405 of 01.12.2006, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

titled as “Harcharanjit Singh Vs. Smt. Baljit Kaur” moved by Harcharanjit

Singh-respondent No.2. Said judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 06.10.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot, has

been further upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide

judgment dated 08.03.2010.

Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

06.10.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot, the

petitioner was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one

year for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 and to pay a fine

of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one

AMANDEEP GOSAIN

2023.03.01 10:29

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR-806-2010 (O&M)

-2-

month.

The aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 06.10.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Faridkot, has been upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Faridkot, vide judgment dated 08.03.2010.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the

pendency of this revision, one time settlement was effected into between the

petitioner and respondent No.2. The petitioner has also filed an application

bearing CRM-2066-2023 in CRR-806-2010, seeking compounding of the

offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881. Accordingly, learned

counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the offence under Section 138 of

the N.I. Act, 1881, may be compounded and conviction of the petitioner may

be set aside.

The factum of one time settlement between the petitioner and

respondent No.2 has not been disputed by learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2, rather, he very fairly submits that he has no objection, in

case, the conviction of the petitioner is set aside.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused

the paper book with their able assistance. Once the parties have settled their

dispute, then in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in

Vinay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd., 2008(1) RCR

(Criminal) 249, the offence committed by the petitioner for which he has

been convicted, is compoundable. Relevant paras therefrom are extracted

below :-

“17. As observed by this Court in Electronic Trade

&Technology Development Corporation Ltd. v. Indian

Technologies & Engineers, 1996(1) RCR (Criminal) 592:

(1996)2 SCC 739, the object of bringing Section 138 in the

AMANDEEP GOSAIN

2023.03.01 10:29

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR-806-2010 (O&M)

-3-

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