Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 890 (PNJ)

Bal Krishan Som Pal v. Sat Pal

2012-07-10

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of above indicated two revision petitions between the same parties, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. 2. Tersely, the facts and material, which need a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petitions and emanating from the record, are that, initially, complainant respondent No.1 Sat Pal (for brevity “the complainant”) instituted two criminal complaints against the petitioners-accused, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as “the NI Act”). 3. Having completed all the codal formalities and on the basis of evidence brought on record, the trial Magistrate convicted the petitioners-accused in both the complaints to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of one month each u/s 138 of the NI Act. They were also directed to pay the cheque amount as compensation to the complainant, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.7.2009. 4. In the wake of appeal filed by the accused, appellant-accused Som Pal was acquitted. However, the appeal filed by the remaining appellants (petitioners-accused) was dismissed by the appellate Court, by virtue of impugned judgment dated 15.11.2011. 5. The petitioners-accused still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments of conviction & orders of sentence and filed the present revision petitions, invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.PC. During the pendency of the revision petitions, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their dispute. 6. During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this court (Nirmaljit Kaur, J.), noticing the factum of compromise, passed the following order on 6.2.2012:- “Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are ready to discharge their liability. They have already placed on record a photo copy of demand draft amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of the respondent-complainant. The original draft was shown to this Court. They have already placed on record a photo copy of demand draft amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of the respondent-complainant. The original draft was shown to this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioners are also ready to pay the interest at the nominal rate from the date when the cheque in question was dishonoured till the date the present demand draft was prepared. However, no one is present on behalf of the respondent. Admitted. Sentence of the petitioners shall remain suspended during the pendency of the present revision petition and they are ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala.” 7. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners-accused have handed over two demand drafts to the learned counsel for the complainant and the following order was passed on 3.5.2012 as well:- “In pursuance to the order dated 6.2.2012, learned counsel for the petitioners has handed over two demand drafts bearing Nos.824041 and 824042 dated 29.11.2011 amounting to Rs.One lac each (Total Rs.2 lacs) i.e. one each of the present petitions. The same are handed over to the learned counsel for respondent No.1, who is present in the Court. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned to 10.7.2012 to enable the petitioners to pay the amount towards interest i.e. Rs.72,000/- towards cheque No.823372 dated 1.1.2004 and Rs.67,500/- towards cheque No.823373 dated 1.6.2004. A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.” 8. Sequelly, at the very outset, today the learned counsel for petitioners accused has also handed over three demand drafts, bearing Nos.171777, 171779 of Rs.72,000/- (Rs.40000 + 32000) and 171780 of Rs.67500/-, in lieu of interest towards cheque Nos.823372 & 823373 respectively. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have compounded the indicated offence and have already made the payment of cheques as well as interest, in the manner described here-inbefore. Moreover, the learned counsel for parties are ad idem that the pointed offence deserves to be compounded in view of settlement between the parties. 9. Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in these petitions is, as to whether the impugned judgments are liable to be quashed in view of the settlement or not ? 10. 9. Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in these petitions is, as to whether the impugned judgments are liable to be quashed in view of the settlement or not ? 10. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the affirmative. 11. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that Section 147 of the NI Act postulates that every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. It is now well settled principle of law that once the erring party has made the payment of entire amount, then, he is entitled to compound the offence, as contemplated under section 147 of the NI Act. This matter is no more res integra and is now well settled. 12. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases K. Subramanian v. R. Rajathi Represented by P.O.A.P. Kaliappan, 2010 (1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 185; Vinay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank limited, [2007(5) Law Herald (SC) 3843] : 2008(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 249 and by this Court in case Shiv Kumar v. Sanjiv Arora, 2010(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 299, wherein it was ruled that under such circumstances, the parties should be permitted to compound the indicated offence. 13. Therefore, once, it is proved on record that the parties have compounded the offence, compromised the matter and as the petitioners-accused have already made the entire payment of cheques & interest, therefore, to my mind, it would be expedient and interest of justice would be met and sub-served, if the parties are allowed to compound the offence to enable them to live in peace. There is no impediment in this relevant connection, in view of the provisions of Section 147 of the NI Act read with Section 320(8) Cr.PC and the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Subramanian, Vinay Devanna Nayak’s cases and of this Court in Shiv Kumar’s case (supra). Meaning thereby, the aforesaid judgments are the complete answer to the problem in hand. 14. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petitions are hereby accepted and the impugned judgments of conviction and orders of sentence, in both the petitions, are set aside. Meaning thereby, the aforesaid judgments are the complete answer to the problem in hand. 14. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petitions are hereby accepted and the impugned judgments of conviction and orders of sentence, in both the petitions, are set aside. Consequently, the petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them, in view of compounding of offence as contemplated under Section 147 of NI Act and Section 320(8) Cr.PC in the obtaining circumstances of the case. ---------0.B.S.0------------