Sameer Dhar v. State Of Punjab And Another






 



 

 






































































!"
#$%$!&'
 ( (  )

* $$!& + ,-) )



 










* %.!&/ &% '
 01
(
)

)

 



    





    

  

  

  

  ! "

#### 
)

(

+ 2 $ % 

  



 '

&  "( )( ")"$

 + 

 , - 

 

   !, 

    & & 

  * 

 

 1 -  

   ! "2& 

   



  &

"

.  

  
  

      -

    & & 

 )"

* 

 

 $   

   

  % 




  

 -   

&

 3 

*





  ! "

   & )4 )0 ")"5



 &

  &

  ' 

* 

&

 $   6   ! "

%

 



&

 $ 



 



  

  ! "

&  & &   

&    ! "2&      

&

 $ 

         



'   &

& / .     ! "

 &    ! "



 &

  &

      * 



 )5  &  * After giving my thoughtful consideration to the submissions put forth by all sides and on careful perusal of the material on record, it transpires that the petitioner has deposited the abovesaid amount to the complainant-respondent No. 2. Hence, this Court is inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioner.

5.

Pertinently, the amendment carried out in the year 2002 in the NI Act intended to make the nature of offence under Section 138 of the NI


Act as a civil wrong while making it compoundable. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another Vs. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 560, speaking through Justice A.K. Goel has held as under:- "7. This Court has noted that the object of the statute was to facilitate smooth functioning of business transactions. The provision is necessary as in many transactions' cheques were issued merely as a device to defraud the creditors. Dishonour of cheque causes incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience to the Vide the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 payee and credibility of business transactions suffers a setback.

At the same time, it was also noted that nature of offence under Section 138 primarily related to a civil wrong and the 2002 amendment specifically made it compoundable...... xxxx xxxx xxxx 18.2. The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties or the court. 18.3. Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused."

 







'*  $00$  



 '

&  "( )( ")"$

 + 

 , - 



 * 







'   &

& 8   

*     (
 

  

 &

8.



& 

 9: 

*  

  

 *










)
 $) )$ ")"4