Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 733 (PNJ)

Deepak Syngle v. Sukhbir Singh

2023-02-15

VIVEK PURI

body2023
JUDGMENT Vivek Puri, J. The petitioner has assailed the judgments of the Courts below vide which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for committing the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'). 2. The respondent no.1 has instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioner on account of dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs. 11,00,000/- issued by the petitioner in discharge of his legal liability. The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay compensation equivalent to the cheque amount i.e. Rs. 11,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of issuance of cheque till the final realization of the amount and default thereof to further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, in terms of the judgment dated 09.08.2019 passed by the learned trial Court. 3. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the judgment dated 09.08.2019 and the same has been dismissed in terms of the judgment dated 06.10.2022 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Patiala. Appeal qua conviction was dismissed, but the sentence was modified and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and directed to pay compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 6,33,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of issuance of cheque till final realization and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.1 are ad idem that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties in terms of the compromise dated 06.01.2023 (Annexure P-1). It has been settled that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 7,80,000/- to the respondent no.1. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- has already been paid to the respondent no.1 vide demand draft bearing No. 651637, dated 26.12.2022 drawn on State Bank of India, Branch New Officers' Colony, Patiala. The balance amount is to be paid in three installments i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,80,000/- which are to be paid on or before 06.04.2023, 06.06.2023 and 07.08.2023, respectively. Besides, a sum of Rs. The balance amount is to be paid in three installments i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,80,000/- which are to be paid on or before 06.04.2023, 06.06.2023 and 07.08.2023, respectively. Besides, a sum of Rs. 3,66,667/- was deposited in the trial Court in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Appellate Court. The said amount along with another amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been released to the respondent no.1 and the entire claim on account of disputed cheque which has been fully and finally settled. It has also been stated that at the earlier instance, in terms of the amicable settlement, the petitioner had also issued a cheque for Rs.1,80,000/- in favour of respondent no.1, but the same was dishonoured on account of serious health issues of the petitioner. An amicable settlement has also been effected with regard to the dishonor of the said cheque. 6. It has been submitted that the delay in settlement has occurred on account of some serious health issues of the petitioner and in such circumstances, a prayer has also been made for waiving the condition with regard to the imposition of the costs. 7. In Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., 2010(2) RCR (Criminal) 851, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the matter with regard to the imposition of costs by the competent Court shall be a matter of discretion and it can reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of the case. 8. As per Section 147 of the Act, the offences are compoundable. 9. Furthermore, the delay in settlement has occurred on account of some health issues of the petitioner. No other case is stated to be pending against the petitioner and the compromise would help in strengthening the mutual relationship between the parties. In such circumstances, reasonable and sufficient grounds are made out for indulgence to waive the condition of 15% of the cheque amount towards costs of the litigation. The indulgence with regard to the waiving the imposition of the costs is being extended in the circumstances of the case and put a quietus to the entire controversy in view of the amicable settlement between the parties. 10. The indulgence with regard to the waiving the imposition of the costs is being extended in the circumstances of the case and put a quietus to the entire controversy in view of the amicable settlement between the parties. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has fairly stated that in view of the amicable settlement that he has no objection, if the permission is granted to compound the offence, the condition with regard to the imposition of costs is waived and the judgments of the Courts below are set aside. 11. In these set of circumstances, the offence is allowed to be compounded and the impugned judgments dated 09.08.2019 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and 06.10.2022 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted. 12. Instant revision petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As the present revision petition has been disposed of, all the pending Misc. applications, if any, stands disposed of.