Baljit Kaur v. State Of Punjab & ANR
--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.02.2023
....Petitioner
Versus
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :
Mr. S.K. Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harjinder S. Sidhu, AAG, Punjab.
Ms. Nikita, Advocate for Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant.
HARSH BUNGER, J. (Oral) Petitioner-Baljit Kaur, has filed the present revision petition, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.2008 (wrongly mentioned as 06.08.2008 in the prayer clause) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot, upon a complaint bearing No.405 of 01.12.2006, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, titled as "Harcharanjit Singh Vs. Smt. Baljit Kaur" moved by Harcharanjit Singh-respondent No.2. Said judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot, has been further upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide judgment dated 08.03.2010.
Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot, the petitioner was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one
-- month.
The aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot, has been upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide judgment dated 08.03.2010.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this revision, one time settlement was effected into between the petitioner and respondent No.2. The petitioner has also filed an application bearing CRM-2066-2023 in , seeking compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881, may be compounded and conviction of the petitioner may be set aside.
The factum of one time settlement between the petitioner and respondent No.2 has not been disputed by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, rather, he very fairly submits that he has no objection, in case, the conviction of the petitioner is set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book with their able assistance. Once the parties have settled their dispute, then in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vinay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd., 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 249, the offence committed by the petitioner for which he has been convicted, is compoundable. Relevant paras therefrom are extracted below :-
!
!" ##$% $ % &#'
$##%()*#
--
!
"
#
!
$ # # #
%
!
$ % !
!
!
&
!
&
!
' (
% !
)!
!
*
& +,--,)..
,--,+"
/ '0 !
1(#
! &
2), 2'+
!
"
) '+ !
!
!
! #
3
!
#
24
#
#
!
!
!
#
!5'.---61
#
!
1 #
$ "
$
!7 It is noted that in terms of the order dated 07.02.2023 passed by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over a copy of receipt whereby Rs.25,000/- has been deposited in the `Punjab State Legal Services Authority', (which is taken on record and marked as 'Mark A') on account of compounding fee/costs in terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble
-- Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 633 as clarified by Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh Legal Services Authority Vs. Pratheek Jain and another (2014) 10 SCC 690. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, especially the factum of settlement of dispute between the parties, the offence is compoundable, accordingly, the application for compounding is allowed and it is directed that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.2008 which was upheld vide judgment dated 08.03.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted from all the charges leveled against him. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Pending application/s, if any, shall stands disposed of. 23.02.2023 (HARSH BUNGER) Amandeep JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No