Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1291 (PNJ)

Kulwinder Singh v. Raghbir Singh

2012-09-25

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Criminal Misc. No. 57143 of 2012 The petitioner has filed this application to prepone the hearing of this revision petition fixed for 9.10.2012 as the parties have compromised the matter. For the reasons stated in the application, this case is preponed to this day and Criminal Revision No.2439 of 2012 is taken up for hearing. Main Petition & Criminal Misc. No. 57141 of 2012 1. On a complaint brought by Raghbir Singh, against Kulwinder Singh, the petitioner for an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’) the accusedpetitioner was held guilty and convicted vide judgment dated 5.4.2011 by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. The appeal filed by Kulwinder Singh also failed to bring favourable result to him as the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 2.8.2012. 2. The petitioner has filed an application bearing No. 57141 of 2012 for compounding of offence under section 147 of the Act by treating the revision petition as a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint filed by Raghbir Singh, respondent on the basis of compromise. The matter is claimed to have been compromised between the parties. The compromise, Annexure P2, is placed on the file, which clearly reveals that the matter stands compromised between the parties. However, question that calls for answer before the compromise is considered is as to whether the offence could be compounded at this stage. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in K. Subramanian Vs. R. Rajathi Rep. By P.O.A. P. Kaliappan, 2010 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 184. In the reported case, the conviction of the accused in the case of dishonour of cheques of the value of Rs.4,52,289/- has been upheld upto Hon‘ble Supreme Court and parties thereafter entered into a compromise. The parties were permitted to compound the offence and the conviction was set-aside. 4. In yet another decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in K.M. Ibrahim Vs. K.P. Mohammed & Anr., [2009(6) Law Herald (SC) 4101] : 2010 (1) R.C.R. (Crl.) 595, compounding was held permissible at the appellate stage. The parties were permitted to compound the offence and the conviction was set-aside. 4. In yet another decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in K.M. Ibrahim Vs. K.P. Mohammed & Anr., [2009(6) Law Herald (SC) 4101] : 2010 (1) R.C.R. (Crl.) 595, compounding was held permissible at the appellate stage. It has also been held that once compounding of offence under the provisions of section 147 of the Act is permitted, the conviction for an offence under section 138 of the Act should also be set-aside. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner find support in another decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd., [2007(5) Law Herald (SC) 3843] : 2008 (1) RCR (Crl.) 249. It had been a case pertaining to dishonour of cheque and the parties compromised the matter in appeal before Hon‘ble Apex Court. It was held by Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India that the offence is compoundable at the appellate stage under section 147 of the Act. 5. The compromise (Annexure P2) is on the record which appears to have been entered into between the parties without any pressure on any one and is just and proper. The complainant is represented by a counsel of his choice and, therefore, expert legal advice is also available to him. The compromise has buried the hatchet between the parties though at a belated stage. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, converting the revision petition into a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. on the request of the petitioner, I accept the same and quash the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner under section 138 of the Act read with section 420 IPC. Consequently, the impugned judgments dated 5.4.2011 and 2.8.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana are set-aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge.