Shilpa Aggarwal v. Sarabjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 5044 of 2018 DATE OF DECISION :- July 05, 2023 Shilpa Aggarwal
...Petitioner
Versus
Sarabjit Singh
...Respondent
CRR No. 5032 of 2018 Shilpa Aggarwal
...Petitioner
Versus
Sarabjit Singh
...Respondent
Shilpa Aggarwal
...Petitioner
Versus
Sarabjit Singh
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN Present:- Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Khushika Setia, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Sarwara, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Charanpreet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. ***
CRM-44657 of 2018 in CRR No. 5044 of 2018 CRM-44575 of 2018 in CRR No. 5032 of 2018 CRM-44648 of 2018 in The applications are filed to condone the delay of 1023 days in filing the revision petition.
Heard.
For the reasons mentioned in the applications and in the interest of justice, such delay is condoned.
The applications are allowed.
CRM-9571 of 2023 in CRR No. 5044 of 2018 CRM-9578 of 2023 in CRR No. 5032 of 2018 CRM-9922 of 2023 in After hearing learned counsel for the applicant-revision petitioner and counsel for the complainant, in the interest of justice the order dated 3.3.2020 are recalled and the revision petitions are ordered to be listed at its original number.
The applications are allowed accordingly.
1.
My this order shall dispose of three criminal revision petitions bearing CRR No. 5044 of 2018 titled 'Shilpa Aggarwal Versus Sarabjit
Singh' CRR No. 5032 of 2018 and CRR No. 5041 of 2018 having similar title.
2.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that complainant Sarabjit Singh had brought three complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against accused Shilpa Aggarwal on the allegations that she had issued three cheques in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each dated 15.11.2009, 5.12.2009 and 5.2.2010 drawn on Central Bank of India, Sector 37, Chandigarh from her account in favour of complainant towards discharge of financial liability. However, on presentation the cheques were received back uncashed due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. The complainant was informed accordingly. He had served legal notices through his counsel upon the accused calling upon her to make the payment of cheque amounts within stipulated period but she failed to do so despite due service, as such the complaints were filed.
3.
After recording of preliminary evidence of the complainant, accused was summoned. She put in appearance. Notice of accusation for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was served upon her to which she pleaded not guilty.
4.
The complainant led oral as well as documentary evidence. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. She denied the allegations and pleading innocence.
5.
After hearing arguments the trial Magistrate vide separate judgements dated 16.12.2014, convicted the accused for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act sentencing her to undergo
simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 6.
Feeling aggrieved the accused had preferred appeals before Sessions Court at Patiala but was unsuccessful. Thereafter she had preferred revision petitions before this Court, notices of which were given to respondent complainant.
7.
The revision petitions had been withdrawn by the revision petitioner previously on 1.4.2022. Subsequently in view of applications moved the orders have been recalled for the reason that the matter has been compromised between the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has admitted the factum of compromise having been arrived at between the revision petitioner and complainant Sarabjit Singh and revision petitioner having received settled amount from the revision petitioner stating that complainant has no objection if the revision petition is accepted and the revision petitioner is acquitted.
8.
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has pointed out that the revision petitioner had been convicted in five cases and she had filed five revision petitions. In two other petitioner bearing CRR-5027-2018 (O&M) vide order dated 22.12.2022 the revision petition has been accepted. The matter had been ordered to be compounded and this very order has been passed in CRR-5028-2018 (O&M) on that very date. 9.
Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 every offence punishable under the Act shall be compoundable. Under
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 a High Court or Court of Sessions acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this Section.
10.
Accordingly, in view of settlement arrived at between the parties, the offences are ordered to be compounded. The revision petitions are accepted. Resultantly the impugned judgements passed by the trial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala are set aside and the revision petitioner is acquitted of the notice of accusation served upon her. 11.
She be released from the custody if she is not required in any other case.
(H.S. MADAAN) JUDGE July 05, 2023 p.singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No