Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2849 (PNJ)

Ranbir Singh v. Kamaldeep Singh Kooner

2010-10-06

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2010
Judgment Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. The present appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 20.10.1994 (hereinafter as `impugned judgment) passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Phillaur (hereinafter as `trial Court), whereby the accused- respondent has been acquitted of the charges framed against him. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that the complainant (herein appellant) lodged a complaint on 5.7.1993 under Section 138/139 of Instruments Act, 1881 (for short `the Act) and Sections 406/420/120-B of IPC alleging that the accused respondent had borrowed an amount of Rs. 90,000/- from him vide cheque No 9090593 dated 11.2.1992 and another amount of Rs. 10,000/- in cash on 11.2.1992, and promised to repay the said amount to the complainant. Thereafter, the accused issued cheque dated 10.3.1993 drawn on the State Bank of Patiala, Branch Goraya. On presentation of this cheque with the banker, the same was dishonoured on 11.3.1993 with the remarks `refer to drawer. Consequently, the complainant issued notice dated 15.3.1993 to the accused through his counsel. The accused requested the complainant that he will arrange sufficient amount in his bank account and accordingly, accused directed the complainant to again present the said cheque for encashment. Thereafter, the complainant again presented the cheque in question, which was again dishonoured by the banker and returned to the complainant on 28.5.1993 with the remarks `refer to drawer. The complainant served yet another notice on 4.6.1993 upon the accused asking for the re-payment of abovesaid borrowed amount. The said notice was received by the accused on 7.6.1993 but he failed to repay the borrowed amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to complainant within the stipulated period given in the notice. 3. The complainant filed criminal complainant under Section 138 of the Act against the accused in which the accused was summoned and he sat in appearance in the Court on 8.12.1993 and thereafter, charge sheet under Section 138 of the Act was served upon him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate its case against the accused, learned counsel for the complainant examined as many as three. It, witnesses, namely, Vinod Anand, Officer, Canara Bank, Branch Goraya, as PW-1; Ashok Kumar Kaura, Record Keeper, State Bank of Patiala, Goraya, as PW-2 and Ranbir Singh as PW-3. 5. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate its case against the accused, learned counsel for the complainant examined as many as three. It, witnesses, namely, Vinod Anand, Officer, Canara Bank, Branch Goraya, as PW-1; Ashok Kumar Kaura, Record Keeper, State Bank of Patiala, Goraya, as PW-2 and Ranbir Singh as PW-3. 5. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. while putting all the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the prosecution case to which he pleaded innocence. He did not lead any evidence in his defence. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant-appellant and acquitted the accused-respondent from the charges framed against him. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal delivered by the learned trial Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions from Ranbir Singh, appellant, who is present in the Court, states that the parties have compromised the matter and as such, he does not wish to pursue the same. Learned counsel for the respondent also admits the factum of compromise between the parties and states that he has no objection in case the appellant is allowed to withdraw the present appeal. 8. In the matters where parties have entered into compromise, Larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another reported as 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, has taken the following view :- "32. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P. C. is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restrian. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever- lasting congeniality in society. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restrian. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever- lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savager. " 9 Accordingly, the appellant is allowed to withdraw the appeal and the present appeal is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn. 10. Since the main appeal is decided as such, the misc. application(s) pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Appeal disposed of.