TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 320 (6) Cr.P.C. Since the offence relating to dishonour of cheque has a compensatory profile and is required to have precedence over punitive mechanism, therefore, the present revision petition deserves to be allowed. It is also relevant to state that the petitioner has already undergone custody of 02 months and 20 days out of the total sentence of 01 year and 06 months of rigorous imprisonment - the judgment of conviction and order of quantum of sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, respectively, are set aside. The petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 60,000/-, being 15% of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plainant as a friendly loan and on demand, the petitioner to discharge the liability, had issued cheque No.756530 dated 20.08.2017 for an amount of ₹ 4,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Branch-The Mall, Karnal, against his Account No.10868464144 in favour of the complainant. On presentation, the said cheque was returned dishonoured vide memo dated 12.10.2017 with the remarks Insufficient Funds . Legal notice was given to the petitioner to make the payment of the cheque and on his having failed to make the same, a complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 was registered. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, had, vide judgment dated 08.07.2019 and order of sentence dated 10.07.2019, convicted the present petitioner und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was well as the complainant have submitted that the matter has been compromised. Reference has also been made to the Panchayati compromise and an affidavit dated 07.09.2021 which have been annexed as Annexures P-2 and P-3 along with CRM-29647-2021. The said Panchayati settlement is reproduced hereinbelow:- This Panchayat settlement has been made on 07.09.2021 between the following parties, which is as under:- Sohan Lal, aged 52 years son of Shri Bharat Singh, resident of House No.117, Khukhrana, District Panipat, Adhar No.8770 2352 7732 (who has been stated as the first party). AND Balwan Singh son of Shri Rambhaj, resident of village Sutana, District Panipat (who has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case nor will give complaint against each other. That both the parties have put their signatures in the presence of witnesses and in the presence of each other on the date and month as aforesaid. First party Sd/-Sohan Lal son of Shri Bharat Singh, resident of House No.117, Khukhrana, District Panipat. Second party Sd/- Balwan Singh son of Shri Rambhaj, resident of village Sutana, District Panipat. Sd/-Witness Rajesh Sd/-Randhir Singh The affidavit filed in support of the same by the complainant/ respondent No.2 is also reproduced hereinbelow:- AFFIDAVIT I, Sohan Lal son of Shri Bharat Singh, resident of House No.117 , Khukhrana, District Panipat states by way my affidavit that:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d counsel for the petitioner as well as the complainant/respondent No.2 have submitted before this Court that the compromise is genuine, bona fide and has been executed by the parties without any undue pressure or influence and they have jointly prayed that the revision petition may be allowed in view of the compromise and the judgments of the Courts below may be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is ready to deposit 15% of the amount of the cheque i.e., ₹ 60,000/- (cheque amount being ₹ 4,00,000/-) within a period of 03 weeks with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority, in accordance with the judgment passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Damodar S Prabhu Vs. Sayed B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced on Kaushalya Devi Massand vs. Roopkishore Khore, 2011 (2) RCR (Criminal) 298 and Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal, AIR 2010 (SC) 1097. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in terms of Section 401 Cr.P.C. would result in bringing about ends of justice between the parties in the event of finding that the compromise is genuine, bonafide and free from any undue influence. The compromise in question would serve as a everlasting tool in favour of the parties for which indulgence can be given by this Court. The revisional exercise would also be in consonance with the spirit of Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The principle as laid down in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal, AIR 2010 (SC) 1097 , would be sq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
