Rajesh Jalota (Mintu) v. Ashu Kaura

CRR-3599-2018o(O&M) -o1-109+235 INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANA AToCHANDIGARH CRR-3599-2018o(O&M) DateoofoDecision:07.08.2023 RajeshoJalotao(Mintu) …Petitioner Vs. AshuoKaura o …Respondent Coramo: Hon'bleoMr.oJusticeoN.S.She=hawat Present: Mr.oSuniloKumaroJain,oAdvocate forotheopetitioner. Mr.oAnubhavoSingla,oAdvocate forotheorespondent. *** N.S.She=hawatoJ.

¶1TheopresentorevisionopetitionohasobeenofiledobeforeothisoCourtowithoa prayerotooquashotheoimpugnedojudgmentoandoorderodatedo28.11.2014opassedoby theoCourtoofoJMIC,oPhagwara,owherebyotheopresentopetitionerowasoheldoguilty forocommittingotheooffenceopunishableounderoSectiono138oofotheoNegotiable InstrumentsoActoandowasosentencedotooundergoorigorousoimprisonmentoforoa periodoofo01oyearoandotoopayotheocompensationoamountotootheotuneoof Rs.50,000/-otootheocomplainantoandoalsooagainstotheojudgmentodatedo18.09.2018 passedobyotheoCourtoofolearnedoAdditionaloSessionsoJudge,oKapurthala,owhereby theoappealofiledobyotheopetitionerowasoorderedotoobeodismissed.

¶2Asoperorespondent/complainant,otheopetitioner/accusedowasounderoa debt o of o Rs. o 2,00,000/- o and o in o order o to o discharge o his o liability, o the petitioner/accusedohadoissuedoaochequeobearingoNo.034670odatedo27.07.2011,for aosumoofoRs.2,00,000/-owithoanoassuranceothatotheosameowouldobeohonouredoon presentationobyotheorespondent.oTheorespondentopresentedotheosaidochequeofor CRR-3599-2018o(O&M) -o2-encashmentothroughohisobank,obutotheosameowasoreturnedobyotheobankersoofothe petitionerowithotheoremarkso"accountoclosed".oTheorespondentogotoaolegalonotice issued o through o his o counsel o on o 30.07.2011, o which o was o served o upon o the petitioner,owherebyoheowasocalledouponotoomakeotheopaymentoofotheoamountoof cheque,owithinoaostipulatedoperiodofromotheodateooforeceiptoofotheonotice. However,otheopetitionerodidonotomakeotheopaymentoandotheorespondentofiledoa complaintounderoSectiono138oofotheoNegotiableoInstrumentsoAct,obeforeotheoTrial Court.oTheopetitionerowasoconvictedobyotheolearnedoTrialoCourtoasowelloasobyothe Ist o Appellate o Court o and o challenging o the o correctnesso and o legality o of o the impugnedojudgmentsopassedobyotheoTrialoCourtoasowelloasotheoIstoAppellate Court,otheopetitionerohadoapproachedothisoCourtobyowayoofofilingotheopresent petitionounderoSectiono401oCr.P.C.

¶3Duringotheopendencyoofotheopetition,otheopetitionerohasofiledoan applicationounderoSectiono147oofotheoAct,oforocompoundingoofotheooffenceounder Sectiono138oofotheoAct.oLearnedocounseloforotheopetitionerocontendsothatoduring theopendencyoofotheopresentopetitionobeforeothisoCourt,otheopartiesohaveoamicably resolvedoallotheirodisputesowithotheointerventionoofotheorelativesoandorespectables ofotheoareaoandoaocompromiseodeedodatedo03.04.2023o(AnnexureoA-1)ohadobeen preparedoinothisoregard.oApartofromothat,otheopetitionerohadopaidoaototalosumoof Rs.3.75olacsotootheorespondentotowardsofulloandofinalosettlementoofohisoclaim, arisingooutoofotheoaboveomentionedochequeoofoRs.2olacs.oItowasoalsooagreed betweenotheopartiesothatotheopetitionerohadodepositedoaosumoofoRs.o2olacsowithothe RegistryoofothisoCourt,oinocomplianceoofotheoorderodatedo18.12.2018opassedoby thisoCourtoandoitowasoagreedobetweenotheopartiesothatotheosaidoamountomayobe returnedotootheopetitioneroandotheorespondentowillohaveonooobjectionotootheosame. CRR-3599-2018o(O&M) -o3- .. Aoshortorepl)ohaso"eeno!iledo")o(a)oo!oa!!idavitoo!orespondentoand theosameo(asota8enoonore ord.

¶2=earned o ounsel o !or o the o respondent o su"mits o that o the respondent3 omplainant o had o re eived o a o total o sum o o! o Rs.0,72,---34 (Rs.0,72,---34onl)) o !rom o the o petitioner3a used o to(ards o !ull o and o !inal settlementoo!ohiso laimoarisin#ooutoo!o he*ueoino*uestionoandonothin#oremained pa)a"leo")otheopetitionerotootheorespondentoandoheohadonooo"je tionoino aseothe o!!en eoisoorderedotoo"eo ompoundedo")othiso'ourtoandotheopetitioneroisoordered too"eoa *uitted.

¶6o/ohaveoheardotheolearnedo ounselo!orotheopartiesoando(ithotheiroa"le assistan e,o/ohaveo#oneothrou#hotheore ordo are!ull).

¶7&heo;on?"leoSupremeo'ourtohasoheldoinotheomatteroo!o���������� ���������������������������������������������� !����������������"�"#�� $%���aso!ollo(s:4

¶15With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed:# THE GUIDELINES

(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows: CRR-3599-2018o(O&M) -o7-

(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused.

(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the Court deems fit.

(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.

(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount. Let it also be clarified that any costs imposed in accordance with these guidelines should be deposited with the Legal Services Authority operating at the level of the Court before which compounding takes place. For instance, in case of compounding during the pendency of proceedings before a Magistrate's Court or a Court of Sessions, such costs should be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority. Likewise, costs imposed in connection with composition before the High Court should be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority and those imposed in connection with composition before the CRR-3599-2018o(O&M) -o5-Supreme Court should be deposited with the National Legal Services Authority.

¶16We are also in agreement with the Learned Attorney General's suggestions for controlling the filing of multiple complaints that are relatable to the same transaction. It was submitted that complaints are being increasingly filed in multiple jurisdictions in a vexatious manner which causes tremendous harassment and prejudice to the drawers of the cheque. For instance, in the same transaction pertaining to a loan taken on an installment basis to be repaid in equated monthly installments, several cheques are taken which are dated for each monthly installment and upon the dishonor of each of such cheques, different complaints are being filed in different courts which may also have jurisdiction in relation to the complaint. In light of this submission, we direct that it should be mandatory for the complainant to disclose that no other complaint has been filed in any other court in respect of the same transaction. Such a disclosure should be made on a sworn affidavit which should accompany the complaint filed under Section 200 of the CrPC. If it is found that such multiple complaints have been filed, orders for transfer of the complaint to the first court should be given, generally speaking, by the High Court after imposing heavy costs on the complainant for resorting to such a practice. These directions should be given effect prospectively.

¶17We are also conscious of the view that the judicial endorsement of the above quoted guidelines could be seen as an act of judicial law#making and therefore an intrusion into the legislative domain. It must be kept in mind that Section 147 of the Act does not carry any guidance on how to proceed with the compounding of offences under the Act. We have already explained that the scheme contemplated under Section 320 of the CrPC cannot be followed in the strict sense. In view of the legislative CRR-3599-2018o(O&M) -o6-vacuum, we see no hurdle to the endorsement of some suggestions which have been designed to discourage litigants from unduly delaying the composition of the offence in cases involving Section 138 of the Act. The graded scheme for imposing costs is a means to encourage compounding at an early stage of litigation. In the status quo, valuable time of the Court is spent on the trial of these cases and the parties are not liable to pay any Court fee since the proceedings are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though the impact of the offence is largely confined to the private parties. Even though the imposition of costs by the competent court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. The competent Court can of course reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance. Bona fide litigants should of course contest the proceedings to their logical end. Even in the past, this Court has used its power to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution to frame guidelines in relation to subject#matter where there was a legislative vacuum. ,. /toisonotoinodisputeothatotheorespondentohadoinitiatedotheo riminal prose utionoo!otheopetitioneroonotheo#roundothatoao he*ueoo!oanoamountoo!oRs.+ la soissuedo")otheopetitionerostoododishonoured.o1o(o!romotheosettlementodeed datedo-0.-..+-+0oAnne>ureoA4%,oitoisoapparentothatoaosumoo!oRs.0.72ola sohave "eenopaido")otheopetitionerotootheorespondentoandotheolearnedo ounselo!orothe respondentohasoalsoomadeoaostatementothatotheoo!!en eoma)o"eoorderedotoo"e ompoundedoandoheohasonooo"je tionoino ase,otheopetitioneroisoorderedotoo"e a *uittedoonotheo"asisoo!otheo ompromiseo"et(eenotheoparties.o'onse*uentl),o") invo8in#otheopo(ersoo!othiso'ourtounderoSe tiono%.7oo!otheo1e#otia"le /nstrumentsoA toreado(ithoSe tiono.,+o'r.P',otheopartiesoareoallo(edoto CRR-3599-2018o(O&M) -o7-compoundotheooffencesoandotheopetitioneroisoorderedotoobeoacquittedoofonoticeoof accusation.o

¶9Theoimpugnedojudgmentoandoorderodatedo28.11.2014opassedobyothe CourtoofoJMIC,oPhagwaraoandootheojudgmentodatedo18.09.2018opassedobyothe CourtoofolearnedoAdditionaloSessionsoJudge,oKapurthalaoareoorderedotoobeoset aside.o

¶10Fromotheorecordoitoisoapparentothatotheopetitionerohadodepositedoa sumoofoRs.2olacsowithotheoRegistryoofothisoCourtoinocomplianceoofotheoorder datedo18.12.2018opassedobyothisoCourt.ooTheoRegistryoofotheoCourtoisodirectedoto returnotheoamountoofoRs.2olacs,olyingoinotheoRegistryoofothisoCourtoagainstoproper receiptoandoidentification,otootheopetitioner.

¶11TheopetitioneroisoalsoodirectedotoodepositoanoamountoofoRs.30,000/- whichoiso15%oofotheochequeoamount,owithinoaoperiodoofotwoomonths,ofromotoday withotheoPunjaboLegaloServicesoAuthority,oinocaseotheocostoisonotodepositedowith theoPunjaboStateoLegaloServiceoAuthorityowithinoaoperiodoofotwoomonthsofrom today,otheopresentopetitionoshallobeoorderedotoobeodismissed.

¶12Allootheropendingoapplicationsoifoany,oareoalsoodisposedooff, accordingly.o o o o(N.S.SHE5HAWAT)

07.08.2023 o ooooooooooo oJUDGE hitesh Whetherospeaking/reasoned :o Yes/Noo Whetheroreportable :o Yes/No