9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25.07.2017 and 27.07.2017 respectively passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram in Criminal Complaint No. 1485 of 16.05.2015/21.05.2015 (CIS No. NACT 2328 of 2015) has been dismissed. Along with same, a challenge was also raised to the order dated 26.10.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram whereby the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person on account of his non-appearance on the said date. 2. Along with the main revision petition, the petitioner had also filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12851 of 2022 invoking the jurisidiction of this Court under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 seeking compounding of the offence. It was contended that the matter has been amicably resolved between the petitioner and the complainant-respondent whereupon a demand draft bearing No. 417751 dated 14.03.2022 amounting to Rs.3, 85,000/- and a demand draft bearing No. 417752 dated 16.03.2022 amounting to Rs. 11,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon had been handed over to the respondent. The said contention was accordingly recorded and the parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate to determine the validity and g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court. It was urged that in order to facilitate settlement of disputes, the legislature thought it fit to insert Section 147 by Amending Act 55 of 2002. Such amendment came into effect from 6th February, 2003, and provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under the Act would be compoundable. 6. Mr. Rohtagi urged that in view of the nonobstante clause, the provisions of Section 147 were given an overriding effect over the Code and in view of the clear mandate given to the parties to compound an offence under the Act, reference to Section 320 Cr.P.C. can be made for purposes of comparison only in order to understand the scope of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 7. Mr. Rohtagi submitted that the said position had been accepted by this Court in various decisions, such as in the case of O.P. Dholakia vs. State of Haryana & Anr. [(2000) 1 SCC 762], wherein it was held that since the petitioner had already entered into a compromise with the complainant and the complainant had appeared through counsel and stated that the entire money had been received by him and he had no objection if the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the table contained in the said section, with or without the leave of the court, and also vests the court with jurisdiction to allow such compromise. By virtue of Sub-Section (8), the Legislature has taken one step further in vesting jurisdiction in the Court to also acquit the accused/convict of the offence on the same being allowed to be compounded. 11. Inasmuch as, it is with a similar object in mind that Section 147 has been inserted into the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by amendment, an analogy may be drawn as to the intention of the Legislature as expressed in Section 320(8) Cr.P.C., although, the same has not been expressly mentioned in the amended section to a proceeding under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act. 12. Apart from the above, this Court is further empowered under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass appropriate orders in line with Sub-Section (8) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. in an application under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act, in order to do justice to the parties. 13. As far as the non-obstante clause included in Section 147 of the 1881 Act is concerned, the 1881 Act being a special statute, the provisions of Section 147 will have an overriding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 24.10.2016 passed by the trial Court vide which a direction was issued to register the aforesaid FIR. xxx xxx xxx Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by this Court in " Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another (supra), 2017, (3) L.A.R.584, Microqual Techno Limited and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2015 (32) RCR (Crl.) 790 and "Rajneesh Khanna Vs. State of Haryana and another" 2017(3) L.A.R. 555 wherein in an identical circumstance, this Court has held that since the main petition filed under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties, therefore, continuation of proceedings under Section 174A of IPC shall be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. xxx xxx xxx In view of the same, I find merit in the present petition and accordingly, present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.10.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Panchkula as well as FIR No.64 dated 15.02.2017 registered under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, are hereby quashed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dev Chand Bansal verus State of Haryana and Another passed in CRM-M-43813 of 2018 decided on 29.01.2019, this Court has observed as under: "Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by this Court in " Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another (supra), 2017, (3) L.A.R.584, Microqual Techno Limited and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2015 (32) RCR (Crl.) 790 and "Rajneesh Khanna Vs. State of Haryana and another" 2017(3) L.A.R. 555 wherein in an identical circumstance, this Court has held that since the main petition filed under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties, therefore, continuation of proceedings under Section 174A of IPC shall be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and in view of the judgment passed in Vikash Sharma (supra) case, considering the fact that the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act was compromised as the petitioner has paid the entire cheque amount to the complainant and later on the same was withdrawn on 09.09.2017, I find merit in present petition as the petitioner has also shown a bona fide c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
