IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

123

CRR No. 1403 of 2021(O&M)

Reserved on 10.11.2021

Pronounced on 17.11.2021

Shunty

......Petitioner

Vs.

Amit Kumar

......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Nitin Meel, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pransh Dhull, Advocate for the complainant.

***

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

Criminal

Complaint

No.159-RT/2015 of 03.09.2014, under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala

Criminal

Appeal

CRA/0000278/2017, Additional Sessions Judge, District Patiala

Criminal

Revision

CRR No.1403 of 2021

1.

The petitioner, who stands convicted for the commission of offence punishable

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short “NIA”) has

come up before this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, (CrPC)

for quashing the proceedings because the parties have compromised the matter.

2.

The petitioner faced criminal prosecution by the private respondent, because of

the dishonour of the cheque in question. The complainant alleged that a cheque

drawn for Rs.1,70,000/- dated 07.08.2014 by the accused, which was handed over by

him to the complainant in discharge of his legally enforceable liability did not

honour. Afterthat the complainant issued a notice but despite that the accused did not

discharge his liability. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant lodged prosecution by

SONIA ARORA

2021.11.18 03:38

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

filing a complaint under Section 138 of NIA. Vide above captioned judgment, learned

Trial Court accepted the complaint; convicted and sentenced the accused vide

judgment dated 23.02.2017 under Section 138 of NIA. Feeling aggrieved the convict

filed an appeal before the Sessions Court. However, learned Sessions Court dismissed

the appeal vide judgment dated 08.01.2021. Afterthat, the petitioner has filed the

present Criminal Revision before this Court. As per annexure P-1 attached with the

petition, it is stated that the convict and the complainant have entered into an out of

Court compromise on 04.03.2021. When the matter was taken up, learned counsel for

the complainant based on the instructions received in this regard submitted that the

complainant has no objection, if the present Criminal Revision is allowed and the

conviction and sentence is set aside because the matter has been compromised

between them to their full satisfaction and there is no due towards the petitioner.

3.

The jurisprudence behind the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is that the

business transactions are to be honored. The legislative intention is not to make

people suffer incarceration only because their cheque bounced. These proceedings

are to execute the recovery of cheque amount by showing teeth of penalty loss.

4.

Given the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Damodar S.

Prabhu v SayedBabalal, (2010) 5 SCC 663, the law is well settled that when the

entire money is paid, then the complainant cannot have any objection to such

compromise, and 15% of the cheque amount is to be paid by the accused to the

concerned State Legal Services Authority.

5.

Given above, because of the compromise, this is a fit case where the inherent

jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC supported by Section

147 of the NIA is invoked to disrupt the prosecution and quash the proceedings

mentioned above. The complaint, notice of accusation, and the proceedings captioned

above are quashed and set aside. The bail bonds are accordingly discharged. All

pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

6.

The amount of cheque in question was Rs. 1,70,000/- ,15% of which comes out

to be Rs. 25,50