Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1404 (PNJ)

Anup Saini v. State Of Haryana & Another

2010-04-07

AJAI LAMBA

body2010
Judgment Ajai Lamba, J. 1. The revision petition has been filed in challenge to judgment dated 8.3.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar i.e. the Appellate Court. Vide the said judgment, appeal filed by the petitioner against judgment of conviction dated 11.9.2008 recorded by the Trial Magistrate and Order of sentence dated 13.9.2008 have been upheld. Conviction of the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, Act) has been maintained as also the sentence for a period of 6 months and compensation to the tune of Rs. 90,000/- (in default of payment of compensation, 3 months simple imprisonment). 2. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 18023 of 2010 has been filed under Section 147 of the Act read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for compounding of offence. 3. Notice of motion. 4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Gaurav Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. 5. Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2. 6. Reply by way of affidavit of Ram Kumar has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 in Court today which is taken on record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-complainant contend that disputes between the parties have been settled. Cheque amount has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent-complainant and nothing is due towards the petitioner to be paid to the complainant. Both the parties are residents of the same locality and continuance of further proceedings shall disturb peace and harmony in the society in general. 8. It has specifically been stated on behalf of respondent No. 2-complainant that the complainant would have no objection if judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set aside and the offence is compounded. 9. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties. 10. Considering the fact that the complainant has taken a stand before this Court that cheque amount has already been paid and no further action needs to be taken against the petitioner, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 18023 of 2010 as well as the main revision petition are allowed. Accordingly the offence under Section 138 of the Act is compounded and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge.