Sunil Bhatia vs Arjun Shah Singh and Another

Tej Pratap Singh Mann, J.—The petitioner was tried for an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on a private criminal

complaint instituted by respondent No. 1. Vide judgment and order dated 6/7.4.2012, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad convicted the

petitioner of the aforementioned offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay an amount of Rs.

3,15,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but remained unsuccessful as the same was

dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated 15.3.2013. Hence, the present revision filed by him u/s 401 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. On 17.5.2013, after noticing the stand of the counsel for the petitioner that his client was willing to settle the matter

with respondent No. 1 and in order to show his bonafides, he was prepared to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- out of the cheque amount of Rs.

2,50,000/-, notice was issued regarding suspension of sentence. On 21.5.2013, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was handed over by the counsel for the

petitioner to the counsel for respondent No. 1 in the Court. In view of the same, the sentence of the petitioner was suspended and he was granted

the concession of bail.

On the last date of hearing, i.e. 22.7.2013, the petitioner handed over another amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to respondent No. 1, which was

accepted by the latter. However, respondent No. 1 informed the Court that in case the petitioner would further pay 15% of the cheque amount by

way of costs, he was ready and willing to compound the matter with him. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner has come present and handed over

amount of Rs. 37,500/- also to respondent No. 1, who has accepted the same and has, thereafter, suffered a statement, which reads as under:-

Stated that I had filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the cheque issued by him for a sum

of Rs. 2,50,000/- in my name was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds.

The cheque amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- has already been received by me from the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has also paid an amount of Rs.

37,500/- towards costs, which I have received.

On account of the aforementioned development, I, hereby, compound the matter with the petitioner. I have no objection if the petitioner is

acquitted of the charge against him.

The entire cheque amount alongwith 15% of the same by way of costs stands paid by the petitioner to complainant/respondent No. 1. On

receipt of the same, respondent No. 1 has made a statement that he may be allowed to compound the offence with the petitioner and has no

objection if the petitioner is acquitted of the charge against him.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of JIK Industries Limited and Others Vs. Amarlal V. Jumani and

Another, , where the parties compounded the matter u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at the stage of appeal or revision, the same would

be allowed only if the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount apart from the actual cheque amount by way of costs. The costs of 15% of the

cheque amount and so also the cheque amount have been paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 1, who after receiving the same has made a

statement that in view of the said development, he may be permitted to compound the matter with the petitioner and he has no objection if the

petitioner is acquitted of the charge against him. Resultantly, the revision is accepted, conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set-aside and he is

acquitted of the charge against him.