TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pay the complainant so as to compromise the matter with him. The fact that the complainant has agreed to finally settle the matter for an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- with respect to all the three cheques i.e. for Rs.1,25,000/-, Rs.70,000/-and for Rs.1,20,000/-, for a total amount of Rs.2,60,000/-, also shows that the financial position of the petitioner is not in a good State. It is settled law that this Court has the power to set aside the judgment of conviction against the petitioner on the basis of a valid compromise. The compromise in the present case is genuine and valid. The present criminal revision petition is allowed. - CRR No. 916 of 2022 (O & M) - - - Dated:- 7-5-2022 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl For the Petitioner : Mr. M.L. Saggar, Senior advocate with Ms. Armaan Saggar, Advocate And Mr. Rohit Joghi, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. G.P. Vashist,Advocate ORDER VIKAS BAHL , J. (Oral): Challenge in the present criminal revision is to the judgment dated 21.4.2017, vide which, the petitioner has been convicted in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 21.4.2017 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhaina vide judgment dated 17.3.2022. The petitioner has been convicted u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner has been ordered to undergo a sentence of 2 years RI and a fine of Rs.2000/-and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. That the petitioner was doing the Tent Business. The petitioner had in the year 2014 obtained a loan of Rs.1,35,000/-from M/s Malwa Financiers. The petitioner had issued cheque No. 275461 dated 20.7.2013 for Rs.1,25,000/-to pay the loan amount. The cheque was dishonoured. The respondent as proprietor of M/s Malwa Financiers had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act for dishonouring the cheque No. 275461 dated 20.7.2013. The complaint was contested by the petitioner that he had already returned the amount. The learned JMIC, Jagraon vide judgment dated 21.4.2017 dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent. The concern through respondent has filed CRA No. 2022 MA of 2017 in the Hon'ble Court. 3. That Harjit Singh, proprietor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngh is attached. Dated : 30.4.2022 Petitioner Respondent through through counsel Sd/- Sd/- (Sunny Saggar) (G.P.Vashist) Advocate Advocate Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the said compromise is genuine and bona fide and had been entered into without any coercion or undue influence and has further submitted that he has no objection in case the present criminal revision is allowed and the impugned judgments are set aside. Learned senior counsel for the applicant/petitioner has further submitted that in the present case, the petitioner would not be in a position to pay 15% of the cheque amount as, on account of COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner had suffered irreparable loss and even the tent business which the petitioner was doing on a small scale, has completely finished and in fact, the family members of the petitioner had to sell their tables and chairs in order to collect the money so as to pay the complain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellant submitted that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the conviction of the appellant under Section 138 of N.I. Act is to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to an acquittal. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 and submitted that in cases arising under Section 138, N.I. Act where the parties are compromising the matter this Court has issued the guidelines as to the levy of costs depending upon stage of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the special facts and circumstances of the case, the Court can waive the costs to be levied. As discussed earlier, in the present case, the appellant, accused was acquitted by the Trial Court inter alia on the ground that the respondent had not established that there was a legally enforceable debt. Since the appellant was convicted only in the High Court, the appellant had substantial ground to raise in the criminal appeal filed before this Court. Because of the reversal of the acquittal by the High Court and the conviction recorded only b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is the case of the petitioner that his family had to sell their tables and chairs so as to collect money to pay the complainant so as to compromise the matter with him. The fact that the complainant has agreed to finally settle the matter for an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- with respect to all the three cheques i.e. for Rs.1,25,000/-, Rs.70,000/-and for Rs.1,20,000/-, for a total amount of Rs.2,60,000/-, also shows that the financial position of the petitioner is not in a good State. Learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that on account of said financial position they agreed to finally settle the matter in all three cases for an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- and thus, in view of the said averments as well as keeping in view the special facts and circumstances of the present case, this court deems it appropriate that cost should not be imposed upon the present petitioner. It is settled law that this Court has the power to set aside the judgment of conviction against the petitioner on the basis of a valid compromise. The compromise in the present case is genuine and valid. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the present criminal revision petition is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
