Subhash Son of Balwant Singh v. Sunil Son of Sh Om Parkash

I Subhash Sunil

CORAM

Present:

SUMEET

¶1setting asi Additiona dismissed conviction Magistrat was conv Negotiabl Imprisonm complaina

¶2pendency have amic IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDI *****

Versus

M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SU Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocat Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advoca --- T GOEL, J. (ORAL) The present criminal revisio ide of the impugned order dated al Sessions Judge, Fatehabad d the appeal preferred by the pet n/order of sentence dated 27/30 e Ist Class, Fatehabad (for sho victed for commission of offenc le Instruments Act, 1881 and w ment for 01 year and to pay com ant. Learned counsel for the petit of proceedings, the petitioner cably settled the matter. Vide or UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH

CRR No.2494 of 2024 (O & Date of decision : 12.5.20 Date of uploading : 13.5.20

………….Petitioner s

…….Respondent UMEET GOEL te, for the petitioner ate, for the respondent on petition has been filed seek d 2.12.2024, vide which, the learn (for short 'Sessions Judge'), titioner, as well as the judgment

0.4.2018 passed by learned Judi rt 'JMIC'), whereby the petitio e punishable under Section 138 was sentenced to undergo Rigor mpensation of Rs.1,10,000/- to tioner has submitted that during r and the respondent/complain rder dated 9.12.2024 passed by t

M)

king ned has t of cial oner 8 of rous nant

Court, the directed t weeks. R the matte settlemen DLSA, Fa in pursua shape of a has furth dispute(s) the charge

¶3factum of and has f

22.1.2025 iterated t offence is acquitted.

¶4perused th

¶5three Jud Prabhu v thus: e matter was referred to DLSA to deposit an amount of ₹75,00 Report of Mediator dated 24.1.2 er has been compromised betw t dated 22.1.2025 (copy whereo atehabad. Learned counsel for t ance of the aforesaid order, has an FDR before the trial Court. er submitted that since the pa ), the matter may be compounde e(s) framed against him. Learned counsel appearing f settlement/compromise having further vouched the genuinene 5 stated to be arrived between that the respondent/complainan s permitted to be compounded . I have heard learned couns he available record. It would be apposite to refe dge Bench of the Hon'ble Supr vs. Sayed Babalal H., AIR 2010 "15. With regard to the progre cases, the learned Attorney Ge guidelines for a graded scheme o delay compounding of the offence , Fatehabad and the petitioner w 00/-before the trial Court within 2025 has been received stating t ween the parties vide agreeme of appended at Flag 'A') before the petitioner, to prove his bonaf s also deposited Rs.75,000/- in Learned counsel for the petitio arties have amicably settled th ed and the petitioner be acquitted for the respondent has ratified been arrived at between the par ss of the compromise deed da n the parties. Accordingly, he nt has no objection, in case, and the petitioner is ordered to sel for the rival parties and h er herein to a judgment passed reme Court titled as Damodar 0(SC) 1907, relevant whereof re ession of litigation in cheque bounc eneral has urged this Court to fra of imposing costs on parties who und e. It was submitted that the requiremen

was n 3 that ent/ fide oner heir d of rties ated has o be ave by r S. eads cing ame duly

deposit of the costs will act as a at present, free and easy compou belated, gives an incentive to the d cases for years. An application fo not only results in the system bei deprived of effective justice. In vi following guidelines be followed:-

THE GUIDELINES

(i) In the circumstances, it

(a) That directions can b suitably modified making i an application for comp second hearing of the case compounding may be allo costs on the accused.

(b) If the accused does no as aforesaid, then if an before the Magistrate at a allowed subject to the con to pay 10% of the cheque a compounding with the Leg as the Court deems fit.

(c) Similarly, if the appli the Sessions Court or a H compounding may be allo pays 15% of the cheque am

(d) Finally, if the applicat Supreme Court, the figur amount.

Let it also be clarified tha these guidelines should be depo operating at the level of the Cour For instance, in case of compoun before a Magistrate's Court or a deposited with the District Leg imposed in connection with comp deposited with the State Legal S connection with composition b deposited with the National Legal

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

¶17We are also conscious of the above quoted guidelines co making and therefore an intrusio kept in mind that Section 147 of how to proceed with the compoun already explained that the schem CrPC cannot be followed in the vacuum, we see no hurdle to the have been designed to discoura composition of the offence in cas graded scheme for imposing cost at an early stage of litigation. In t is spent on the trial of these cases Court fee since the proceedings Procedure, even though the impac deterrent for delayed composition, si unding of offences at any stage, howe drawer of the cheque to delay settling or compounding made after several ye ing burdened but the complainant is a iew of this submission, we direct that - t is proposed as follows: be given that the Writ of Summons it clear to the accused that he could m ounding of the offences at the firs e and that if such an application is ma owed by the court without imposing ot make an application for compound application for compounding is m a subsequent stage, compounding can ndition that the accused will be requ amount to be deposited as a condition gal Services Authority, or such autho ication for compounding is made bef High Court in revision or appeal, s owed on the condition that the accu mount by way of costs. tion for compounding is made before re would increase to 20% of the che at any costs imposed in accordance w osited with the Legal Services Autho rt before which compounding takes pl nding during the pendency of proceedi a Court of Sessions, such costs should gal Services Authority. Likewise, c position before the High Court should Services Authority and those imposed before the Supreme Court should l Services Authority. xxx

xxx xxx

xxx the view that the judicial endorsemen uld be seen as an act of judicial l on into the legislative domain. It mus the Act does not carry any guidance nding of offences under the Act. We h me contemplated under Section 320 of e strict sense. In view of the legisla endorsement of some suggestions wh age litigants from unduly delaying ses involving Section 138 of the Act. ts is a means to encourage compound the status quo, valuable time of the C s and the parties are not liable to pay are governed by the Code of Crim ct of the offence is largely confined to

ince ever g the ears also t the s be make t or ade, any ding made n be ired n for ority efore such used e the eque with ority ace. ings d be costs d be d in be nt of law-st be e on have f the ative hich The ding ourt any minal

5.1. New Win Law Hera

5.2. as Sanjab held as un private parties. Even though the im is a matter of discretion, the sc interest of uniformity. The compe with regard to the specific fact recording reasons in writing for s of course contest the proceeding this Court has used its power to the Constitution to frame guidel there was a legislative vacuum." Further the Hon'ble Supreme n Export &Anr. vs. A. Subram ald (SC) 2098, relevant whereof "6. At this juncture, we wou regarding the principles of comp Act. It is to be remembered tha offence which was made an offen the reliability of these instrumen cases involving dishonour of cheq serious concern for our judici 'compensatory aspect' of remedy aspect', courts should encourage Act if parties are willing to do Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 Manoj Goel (2022) 11 SCC 70 Private Limited And Anr. v. Ka

18.2)" More recently, the Hon'ble bij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar an nder: "38. Since a very large number of and interest rates have fallen in th that it is time to 'revisit and t aforesaid guidelines of compound

(a) If the accused pays the ch evidence (namely defence evide compounding of the offence with accused.

(b) If the accused makes the p recording of his evidence but pri the Trial Court, the Magistrate m payment of additional 5% of the Authority or such other Authority

(c) Similarly, if the payment of ch Court or a High Court in Revisio the offence on the condition tha amount by way of costs.

mposition of costs by the competent co cale of costs has been suggested in tent Court can of course reduce the c ts and circumstances of a case, w such variance. Bona fide litigants sho gs to their logical end. Even in the p do complete justice under Article 14 ines in relation to subject-matter wh e Court in a judgment titled as M maniam 2024 INSC 535 : 2024 reads as under: uld also like to reiterate a few wo pounding of offences in the context of at dishonour of cheques is a regula nce only in view of public interest so nts can be ensured. A large numbe ques are pending before courts which ial system. Keeping in mind that dy shall have priority over the 'puni e compounding of offences under the so. (See: Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sa (Para 18), Gimpex Private Limited 05 (Para 29), Meters And Instrume anchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 560(P Supreme Court in a judgment ti nd another = 2025 INSC 1158, f cheque bouncing cases are still pend he last few years, this Court is of the v tweak the guidelines'. Accordingly, ding are modified as under:- heque amount before recording of ence), then the Trial Court may al hout imposing any cost or penalty on ayment of the cheque amount post ior to the pronouncement of judgmen may allow compounding of the offence e cheque amount with the Legal Serv as the Court deems fit. heque amount is made before the Sess on or Appeal, such Court may compo at the accused pays 7.5% of the che

ourt costs while ould past, 42 of here M/s 4(3) ords of NI tory that r of is a itive e NI ayed d v. ents Para iled has ding view f his llow n the nt by e on vices ions ound

5.3. 320 of Cr when exam the judgm Prabhu ( lead to th Negotiabl litigation, been conc In other w the petitio and his ap Court.

5.4. Prabhu ( imposed w of 1881 is been unde from und discretion reduce/wa warrant. T revisited t costs upo judgment

(d) Finally, if the cheque amount would increase to 10% of the cheq The statutory provision of Se r.P.C., 1973) and Section 147 of mined alongwith Section 528 of ments of the Hon'ble Supreme (supra), M/s New Win Export he unequivocal conclusion that le Instruments Act, 1881 can including when the matter has r clusively dealt with by the Mag words, such an offence can be co oner-accused has been convicted ppeal against the same has been The Hon'ble Supreme Cour (supra) has also enunciated th when the offence under Section s compounded at a stage when su ertaken by the Courts so as to duly delaying the compoundi n has been reserved in favo aive such costs, in case facts/c The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the guidelines, insofar as it relat on the accused, but has not mo of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) t is tendered before this Court, the fig que amount." ection 359 of BNSS, 2023 (Sect f Negotiable Instruments Act, 18 f BNSS, 2023 in the guiding ligh e Court in cases of Damodar (supra) and Sanjabij Tari (sup the offence under Section 138 be compounded at all stages reached the High Court after hav gisterial as also the Sessions Co ompromised/compounded even a d by the Court of learned Magistr n dismissed by the learned Sessi rt in the judgment of Damodar hat, ordinarily, costs ought to 138 of Negotiable Instruments A ubstantial proceedings have alrea dissuade the unscrupulous litig ing of such offences. Howev our of the concerned Court circumstances of a given case case of Sanjabij Tari (supra) tes to the quantum of imposition odified the leeway granted in which permits reduction or wai

gure tion ht of r S. ra), 8 of of ving urt. after rate ons r S. be Act ady gant ver, to so has n of

of costs b recording that libert may be ex Court, the however, of costs is such disc accentuati concerned rule of im record cle justify the intent an criminaliz discipline

5.5. Section 5 process a essentially the High continued circumsta powers, in helplessly injustice. based on the factual milieu of a p of reasons for such variance. Fo ty reserved in favour of the cour xercised by any of the courts se e Sessions Court or the magist imperative to bear in mind that s not to be invoked as a matter o cretion must be predicated up ing circumstances which, in d Court seized of the matter, w mposition of cost. The Court, wh ear, cogent and reasoned findings e waiver. This requirement is i nd the underlying purpose s zation of the act of dishonor of e and uphold the credibility and s Still further, the inherent jur 28 BNSS, 2023 is primarily aim and securing the ends of just y personal in nature and a genu Court may intervene to quash d proceedings would be non-pr ances. The inherent powers of a n the absence of which, the Cou y witness the process of law b In other words; such power(s particular case albeit subject to or the sake of clarity it is reitera rts to waive the imposition of co eized of the matter—be it the H terial Court conducting trial. It t discretion to waive the imposit of ordinary course. The exercise pon exceptional, compelling a the considered opinion of warrant deviation from the gene hile invoking such discretion, m s delineating the special factors t in consonance with the legislat sought to be achieved by f cheque, i.e. to inculcate financ sanctity of negotiable instrument risdiction of the High Court un med at preventing abuse of judic tice. Thus, where the dispute uine compromise has been reach h the conviction, recognizing t roductive and unjust in the giv a High Court are incidental repl urt would be obliged to sit still a being abused for the purposes s) is intrinsic to the High Co

ated osts High t is, tion e of and eral must that tive cial ts. nder cial e is hed, that ven lete and s of urt,

forming it such pow powers o possible a of a High power(s) being obs laws attem circumsta impossibl fact arises indefatiga with situa be dealt w Courts. Th the semin to fulfill law, in a of BNSS, may be in ensure th oppressio secure the inherent p conviction ts very life-blood, its very essen wer(s), a High Court would reta of a High Court hence deserve amplitude. These inherent power h Court which ought to be, an to maintain its authority to prev structed or abused. It is a trite mpt to deal with all cases that ances which shape events and the le to lay down provisions capable s. A High Court which exists f able manner, should therefore, ations which, though not express with, to prevent injustice or the he juridical basis of these plenar nal duty and responsibility of a H the judicial function of admini regular, orderly and effective m 2023 reflects peerless and inher nvoked whenever it is just and he observance of the due proce n, to do justice nay substantial e ends of justice. Therefore, the power under section 528 BNSS, n where the parties have reache nce, its immanent attribute. With ain form but lack substance. Th e to be construed with the wid rs are in consonance with the nat nd has in fact been, invested w vent the process of law/Courts fr posit of jurisprudence that thou t may arise, the infinite variety e imperfections of language mak e of governing every case, which for the furtherance of justice in have unfettered power(s) to d sly provided for by the law, need e abuse of the process of law a ry power(s) is the authority; in f High Court; to uphold, to protect a stering justice, in accordance w manner. In other words; Section 5 rent powers, of a High Court wh equitable to do so, in particular ess of law, to prevent vexation justice between the parties and e High Court, in the exercise of 2023 has the discretion to quas d an amicable settlement, provid

hout hese dest ture with rom ugh y of ke it h in n an deal d to and fact and with hich r to n or d to f its sh a

that such undermin

¶6the conce between t further di comprom parties ref and bury the factua permitted

6.1. circumsta litigation to saddle

7.

(i)

(ii)

(iii) h compromise neither imping e the cause justice, as well as the Reverting to the facts of the erned rival parties that an amica them and, therefore, compound irections have been sought fro ise/settlement dated 22.1.2025 flects that the parties have sough the hatchet. Consequently, in th al matrix of the case requires to be compounded and the petit Keeping in view the en ances of the case, the petitioner since about the year 2018; this the petitioner with costs. In view of the prevenient rati The impugned judgment of 27/30.4.2018 passed by lear order dated 2.12.20245 pass set-aside and the petitioner is The rival parties shall rem settlement/compromise dated the parties before the DL compliance thereof, the agg seek recall of this order, albe is clarified that in case non-the erring party may be measure(s). ) Disposed of. ge upon the public interest e substantial justice. case in hand, it is not disputed able settlement has been arrived ding of the offence and necess om this Court. A perusal of stated to be arrived between ht to resolve their dispute(s) in t he considered opinion of this Co s that the offence(s) ought to tioner deserves to be acquitted. ntirety of the attending fa having faced the wrath of crimi Court does not deem it appropri iocination, it is ordained thus: conviction/order of sentence da rned JMIC, as also the impugn sed by learned Sessions Judge, s acquitted. main bound by the terms of d 22.1.2025 entered into betw SA, Fatehabad. In case of n grieved party shall be at liberty eit upon showing sufficient cause -compliance is found to be show saddled with exemplary punit

nor d by d at sary toto urt, be acts/ inal iate ated ned are ween non-y to e. It wn,

CRR No.2494 of 2024 (O & M) -9-

(vi) No order as to costs.

(vii) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.

(viii) It is common ground between the learned rival counsel that the amount of ₹75,000/- deposited in this Court in terms of order dated 9.12.2024 earlier passed by this Court, be released to the petitioner on due identification.

(ix) Ordered accordingly. o

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

12.5.2026 Ashwani o o Whetherospeaking/reasoned:oo Yes/Noo o