Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 255 (PNJ)

Nirmal Singh v. Pritpal Singh

2013-02-22

L.N.MITTAL

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Convict Nirmal Singh has filed this revision petition assailing his conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below in criminal complaint instituted by respondent-complainant Pritpal Singh. Petitioner stands convict under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. The fine amount was paid. 2. Vide order dated 06.02.2013 conviction of the petitioner was upheld and notice of the revision petition was issued re: quantum of sentence only, on submission of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to pay the cheque amount (Rs.16,000/-) with reasonable amount of interest to the respondent-complainant. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from petitioner’s father Gurnam Singh, who is stated to be present in person in the Court, reiterated the earlier submission that the petitioner is ready to pay the cheque amount with reasonable amount of interest. 5. Counsel for respondent, however, pointed out that petitioner’s father Gurnam Singh has lodged FIR No.139 dated 15.10.2010 against the respondent-complainant regarding the same cheque in question alleging that the cheque has been misused by the respondent. Learned counsel for respondent on instructions from the respondent stated to be present in person in the Court, submitted that the said FIR should be compounded/got cancelled by the petitioner’s father and thereupon the respondent is ready to compound the instant case on receipt of cheque amount with reasonable amount of interest. 6. However, counsel for petitioner, after seeking instruction from petitioner’s father Gurnam Singh, stated that Gurnam Singh is not ready to compound the FIR lodged by him. 7. I have carefully considered the matter. Mala fide of the petitioner is writ large. Conviction of the petitioner on the basis of dishonour of cheque, in question, has been upheld by this Court. In spite thereof, petitioner’s father is insisting on prosecuting the respondent on the ground that the respondent has misused the aforesaid cheque. The said FIR was lodged almost one and half years after the instant complaint had been instituted by the respondent. Nothing more is required to be said about the mala fide intention of the petitioner and his father. 8. The said FIR was lodged almost one and half years after the instant complaint had been instituted by the respondent. Nothing more is required to be said about the mala fide intention of the petitioner and his father. 8. In view of the aforesaid, since respondent is not ready to accept the cheque amount with interest for compounding the case, there is no ground for reducing the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Courts below. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed being meritless.