Manjit Kaur v. State of Haryana and Another

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

¶1This common order of mine shall dispose of all the above-mentioned petitions. As these petitions arise out of the same transaction, therefore, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CRR-2933-2023.

¶2The   above-mentioned   revision   petitions   have   been   preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated

30.07.2022 passed against the petitioner by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad in complaint case No. NACT/2263/2018 dated 26.03.2018 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as NI Act) as well as the impugned judgement dated 31.07.2023 passed learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgement of conviction dated 30.07.2022 has been dismissed. The petitioner was sentenced as under: - Sr Complaint before Appeals Sentence Awarded (Concurrent) No. Ld. JMIC, (dismissed), S.I Faridabad./ all titled MANISHA :Manjit Kaur CRR-2933-2023 & 5 other cases                                                                       3 vs. M/s Ramji Steels'

¶1NACT/1567/2018 CRA-247-2022 One year with compensation of Dated 21.02.2018 Rs.25,00,000/- with two months S.I in default thereof

¶2NACT/2265/2018 CRA-248-2022 One year with compensation of Dated 26.03.2018 Rs.16,00,000/- with two months S.I in default thereof

¶3NACT/1568/2018 CRA-249-2022 Six months with compensation of Dated 21.02.2018 Rs.15,00,000/- with two months S.I in default thereof

¶4NACT/2263/2018 CRA-250-2022 Six months with compensation of Dated 26.03.2018 Rs.12,00,000/- with two months S.I in default thereof

¶5NACT/2264/2018 CRA-251-2022 Six months with compensation of Dated 26.03.2018 Rs.12,00,000/- with two months S.I in default thereof

¶6NACT/1566/2018 CRA-252-2022 Six months with compensation of Dated 21.02.2018 Rs.9,00,000/- with two months S.I in default thereof FACTUAL MATRIX

¶3Facts, in brief, are that respondent no.2-complainant is a company engaged in the sale and purchase of iron/steel goods. The petitioner along with two other co-accused (later acquitted) is the partner in the accused partnership firm by the name 'M/s Klassic Industries', which placed various orders   for CRR-2933-2023 & 5 other cases                                                                       4 iron/steel goods. Respondent no.2 supplied the ordered goods to the petitioner. As per the account books maintained by respondent no.2, an amount of Rs.68,31,920/- was found to be due against the petitioner and her firm along with an earlier amount of Rs.64,54,635/-. Despite the receipt of goods, the peti-tioner and her firm failed to make requisite payments to respondent no.2. Thereupon, the petitioner and her partners issued two separate cheques bearing No.613219   dated   20.10.2017   for   Rs.3,00,000/-   and   No.613220   dated

10.12.2017 for Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of respondent no.2 in order to discharge their legal liability. The said cheques were dishonoured vide memo(s) dated

29.01.2018 with remarks 'Funds Insufficient'. Consequently, respondent no.2-complainant issued a legal notice dated 15.02.2018 to the petitioner and her firm, calling upon them to pay the respective cheque amounts but the petitioner and other accused failed to make the said payment. Aggrieved, respondent no.2 preferred the above-mentioned complaints against the petitioner and other part-ners of the firm.

¶4After   preliminary   evidence,   the   petitioner   along   with   other accused was summoned to face trial vide order dated 26.03.2018. After their appearance, they were served with notice of accusation under Section 251 Cr.P.C on 22.05.2018 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶5Ultimately, the learned trial Court after appreciating the complete evidence on record, acquitted the other co-accused but convicted the present petitioner on grounds that the cheques were signed by her and she was also involved in day-to-day business of the accused firm. CONTENTIONS

¶6Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the application dated 10.02.2024 (CRM-5140-2024) submitted in this case forMANISHA CRR-2933-2023 & 5 other cases                                                                       5 compounding the offence in view of settlement would show that a one-time settle-ment to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- with respect to the above-mentioned 6 cases has been affected between the petitioner and respondent no.2. The settlement deed has been reduced in writing on 29.01.2024. It is further submitted that the original settlement deed dated 29.01.2024 has been retained by Mr. Tushar Bhatia, propri-etor of respondent no.2, so he has annexed copy of the same as Annexure A-1. It is requested that the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act may be compounded accordingly. A similar application has been moved in other cases as well as for compounding the offence.

7.  It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to financial crunch, the settlement amount has been collected from the relat-ives of the petitioner and as per the aforementioned settlement deed, the settle-ment amount was agreed to be paid in form of a demand draft on the next date of hearing, i.e., today. The original demand drafts with following details are handed over to the learned counsel for respondent no.2:- Bank Draft No. Date Amount Issuing Bank 848087 01.01.2024 Rs. 22,00,000/- IDFC First Bank 318911 23.01.2024 Rs. 1,80,000/- Union Bank 318912 23.01.2024 Rs. 2,00,000/- Union Bank 848084 2024 Rs. 4,20,000/- IDFC First Bank

¶8Learned state counsel submits that the learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, as such, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency.

¶9Learned counsel representing respondents No. 2 affirms the factum of compromise and affirms the fact that he has received the complete settlement amount   by   way   of   above-mentioned   bank   drafts.   He   further   submits CRR-2933-2023 & 5 other cases                                                                       . that he has no o(jection in case the offences in all the a(ove)'entioned  peti) tions are co'pounded. O$2ER0#TION & #N#7&2I2 %,. 0 have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper) (ook "ith their a(le assistance.

¶11It is settled law that the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act are quasi-criminal in nature and the object and purpose of this en-actment is to provide a compensatory mechanism for expeditious recovery of money as opposed to punishing the accused. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Vijayan Vs. Baby (2012) 1 SCC 260 has con-sidered the said issue and come to the conclusion that punishing the offender is secondary concern.

¶12The amendment carried out in the year 2002 in the NI Act in-tended 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 CRR-2933-2023 & 5 other cases                                                                       7 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."

¶13A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in  JIK Industries Limited and others Vs. Amar Lal V. Jumani and another (2012) 3 SCC 255 has examined the issue whether for compounding of an offence, consent of aggrieved party is required and speaking through Justice Asok Kumar Ganguli, following was held:- "82. A perusal of Section 320 makes it clear that the provisions contained in Section 320 and the various sub-sections is a code by itself relating   to   compounding   of   offence.   It   provides   for   the   various parameters   and   procedures   and   guidelines   in   the   matter   of compounding. If this Court upholds the contention of the appellant that as a result of incorporation of Section 147 in the NI Act, the entire gamut of procedure of Section 320 of the Code are made inapplicable to compounding   of   an   offence   under   the   NI   Act,   in   that   case   the compounding of offence under the NI Act will be left totally unguided orMANISHA CRR-2933-2023 & 5 other cases                                                                       8 uncontrolled. Such an interpretation apart from being an absurd or unreasonable one will also be contrary to the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Code, which has been discussed above. There is no other statutory procedure for compounding of offence under the NI Act. Therefore, Section 147 of the NI Act must be reasonably construed to mean that as a result of the said section the offences under the NI Act are made compoundable, but the main principle of such compounding, namely, the consent of the person aggrieved or the person injured or the complainant cannot be wished away nor can the same be substituted by virtue of Section 147 of the NI Act."

¶14In M/s Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the interest of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been adequately compensated, the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act can be quashed even in the absence of consent of the complainant.

¶15As per the custody certificate dated 20.12.2023 on record, details of custody period of the petitioner are tabulated as under: - Petitioner- Manjit Kaur: Sr Particulars Period Duration No.

¶1Custody under trial --

¶2Custody after conviction 02.08.2023-4 months 19 days

20.12.2023

¶3Parole availed --

¶4Actual   custody   period   after - - conviction

¶5Actual undergone period - 4 months 19 days

¶6Earned remission - 2 days MANISHA 7. Total   sentence   including 4 months 21 days CRR-2933-2023 & 5 other cases                                                                       9 remission CONCLUSION

¶16Consequently,  in view of the above discussion and settlement deed dated 29.01.2024, the above-mentioned revision petitions are allowed and the petitioner is acquitted of the notice of accusation and her bail bonds and surety bonds also stand discharged. Petitioner-Manjit Kaur is stated to be in jail in all the cases. So, she is ordered to be released immediately, if her custody is not required in connection with any other case.

¶17Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

06.02.2024                         JUDGE

CRR-2933-2023 & 5 other cases 1 105 ? 243 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CRR-2933-2023(O&M) Date of Decision: 06.02.2024 MANJIT KAUR ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .......Respondents 2. CRR-2942-2023(O&M) Date of Decision: 06.02.2024 MANJIT KAUR ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .......Respondents 3. CRR-2954-2023(O&M) Date of Decision: 06.02.2024 MANJIT KAUR ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .......Respondents 4. CRR-2959-2023(O&M) Date of Decision: 06.02.2024 MANJIT KAUR ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .......Respondents 5. CRR-2960-2023(O&M) Date of Decision: 06.02.2024 MANJIT KAUR ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .......Respondents CRR-2933-2023 & 5 other cases 2 6. CRR-2947-2023(O&M) Date of Decision: 06.02.2024 MANJIT KAUR ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Rahul Makkar, Advocate and Mr. Sachin Saini, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Prateek Gupta and Mr. Pranjal Chaudhary, Advocates for respondent no.2 Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana ****