Karandeep Singh Sunny and Another vs Shiva Petro Max

Paramjeet Singh, J.

Crl. Misc. No. 20956 of 2013

Allowed. Annexures A-1 and A-2 are taken on record.

Crl. Misc. No. 20955 of 2013

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the matter has been compromised for that reason the application for pre-poning the revision petition has been moved.

Learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions from the respondent, also states that the matter has been compromised.

Application is allowed. Revision petition is pre-poned to today and is taken up for hearing.

Crl. Misc. No. 20954 of 2013 in/and Crl. Revision No. 1074 of 2013 (O & M)

Present criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner against judgment dated 18.3.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction dated 17.5.2012 and order of sentence dated 18.5.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon, vide which the petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The petitioner-accused has further been ordered to pay compensation of the cheque amount to the complainant.

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/accused''s transport company had been taking the diesel for its trucks from the complainant on credit. It is further submitted that accused had issued a cheque bearing No. 024941 dated 8.3.2008 for Rs. 5.00 lacs drawn on Indusind Bank, Limited, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi in favour of the complainant to clear his debts and liabilities. Complainant presented the cheque in question with his banker namely Punjab National Bank, Sukhrali, Gurgaon for encashment but the same was returned unpaid by the banker of the accused due to "insufficient funds". It is further submitted that the complainant contacted the accused company and informed the accused about dis-honouring of cheque but accused requested the complainant to present the cheque with an assurance that this time cheque would be honoured. It is further submitted that complainant again presented the aforesaid cheque with his banker Punjab National Bank, Sukhrali, Gurgaon for encashment. But the same was again dishonoured due to insufficient funds vide bank memo dated 13.5.2008. Complainant served a legal notice dated 29.5.2008 on the accused but in spite of that the accused did not make payment.

The complainant, in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW 1 and Subhash Khanna, Special Assistant of Punjab National Bank, Sukhrali as PW 2 and closed his evidence.

Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating material piece of evidence and documents duly proved and exhibited on the judicial file were put to him. The accused denied the same and also denied his liability to pay anything to the complainant. However, no evidence in defence was led and defence evidence was closed on 11.5.2012.

The learned Trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as above.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the parties state that the dispute has been settled amicably between the parties.

The Learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions from the respondent, states that the respondent would have no objection, if the present revision is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted in the complaint in question on the basis of compromise.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., , has held as under:-

With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed:-

THE GUIDELINES

(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:

(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused.

(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the Court deems fit.

(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.

(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount. Let it also be clarified that any costs imposed in accordance with these guidelines should be deposited with the Legal Services Authority operating at the level of the Court before which compounding takes place. For instance, in case of compounding during the pendency of proceedings before a Magistrate''s Court or a Court of Sessions, such costs should be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority. Likewise, costs imposed in connection with composition before the High Court should be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority and those imposed in connection with composition before the Supreme Court should be deposited with the National Legal Services Authority.

Consequently, in view of statement made by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), present revision petition is allowed. Impugned judgments and order of sentence are set aside and criminal complaint filed by the complainant is quashed, subject to deposit of 15% of the cheque amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 75,000/- with the State Legal Services Authority, Haryana. The petitioner shall be released on deposit of aforesaid amount of Rs. 75,000/-, as directed aforesaid and if not required in any other case. Disposed of accordingly.