Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1271 (PNJ)

Joginder Singh v. Chander Parkash

2013-09-19

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2013
Judgment Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. The petitioner, Joginder Singh, has preferred the aforementioned three revision petitions, which are being disposed of by this common judgment, having arisen out of the similar facts and between the same parties. CRR-4051-2013, has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 15.05.2012, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jalalabad (West), (for short, 'the trial Court'), in Complaint No. 29-2 of 4.3.2008, convicting him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- or in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 week; and judgment dated 22.11.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, (for short, 'the appellate Court'), whereby the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court has been upheld. 2. CRR-4054-2013, has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 15.05.2012, passed by the trial Court, in Complaint No. 26-2 of 21.08.2010, convicting him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- or in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 week; and judgment dated 22.11.2012, passed by the learned appellate Court, whereby the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court has been upheld. 3. Whereas, CRR-4074-2013, has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 15.05.2012, passed by the trial Court in Complaint No. 28-2 of 02.06.2008, convicting him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- or in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 week; and judgment dated 22.11.2012, passed by the learned appellate Court, whereby the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court has been upheld. 4. Heard. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the above noticed three petitions have been filed by the petitioner arising out of the three separate complaints. The total disputed amount is Rs. 1,50,000/-, i.e. Rs. 50,000/- in each case. He further submits that as on now, the entire amount stands paid. 6. 4. Heard. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the above noticed three petitions have been filed by the petitioner arising out of the three separate complaints. The total disputed amount is Rs. 1,50,000/-, i.e. Rs. 50,000/- in each case. He further submits that as on now, the entire amount stands paid. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 informs that the principal amount is not Rs. 50,000/-, as asserted by the petitioner. It is, in fact, Rs. 2,00,000/-. He also submits that the respondent is also not interested in the litigation and he is really and willing to settle the matter in case, the principal amount along with some litigation charges/compensation is paid to him. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner accepts the offer. He offers to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-, in lump sum. The offer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted by the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. In view of the consensus reached between the parties, the petitioner is directed to deposit half of the amount, i.e. Rs. 50,000/-, within 45 days from today and the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/-, within six months thereafter. Out of the total amount, fifteen per cent the total cheque amount, i.e. Rs. 30,000/- (15% of Rs. 2,00,000/-) shall be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee, by the petitioner, in terms of the judgment passed in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010 (2) R.C.R. (Cri) 851 : 2010 (3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 180 : JT 2010 (4) SC 457). The remaining amount of Rs. 70,000/- shall go to the petitioner as principal amount and compensation. In view of the above, the present revision petitions are allowed, judgments of conviction and orders of sentence dated 15.05.2012, passed by the learned trial Court, and judgments dated 22.11.2012, passed by the learned appellate Court, are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offences, he is charged with on the basis of compounding. If the petitioner fails to comply with this order, all these three revisions shall be deemed to be dismissed without further notice and the petitioner shall have to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. The petitioner is on bail in all the three cases. His bail bonds stand discharged.