Surjeet Kumar v. Anant Ram

CRR-40-2019 (O&M) -1 2024:PHHC:048714 255 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-40-2019 (O&M) Date of Deci%ion:09.04.2024 Surjeet Singh …Petitioner Vs. Anant Ram …Respondent Co/a: : Hon'b1e M/. J4%tice N.S.S9e=9aEat Present: Mr. Karambir Singh Randhawa, Advocate for Mr. Satbir Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Neha Bindal, Advocate for the respondent. *** N.S.S9e=9aEat J.

¶1 The petitioner has filed the present revision petition before this Court with a prayer to quash the impugned judgment of conviction dated

20.11.2017 and order of sentence dated 22.11.2017 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa whereby the present petitioner was ordered to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/- to the complainant  and also against the judgment dated 15.12.2018 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed.

¶2A reply by way of an affidavit on behalf of respondent/complainant along with Vakalatanama has been filed and the same are taken on record.

¶3During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner CRR-40-2019 (O&M) -2 2024:PHHC:048714 contends   that   the   parties   have   already   entered   into   a   compromise (Annexure P-1) dated 30.12.2018. In compliance of the said compromise, a payment of Rs.1,20,000/- was paid by the father of the petitioner to the respondent   and   nothing   remained   due   towards   him.   Consequently,   the respondent had also signed the compromise deed and stated that he had no objection in case, the present petition is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be acquitted by this Court. Even as per affidavit filed today in Court, the respondent had clearly stated on oath that he had received an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- from the petitioner through his father and nothing was due towards him.

¶4Learned  counsel   appearing  on  behalf  of  the  respondent  also submits that the respondent has no objection, in case the petitioner is ordered to be acquitted in view of the compromise between the parties.

¶5 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, I have gone through the record carefully.

¶6The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of ���������� ���������������������������������������������� !����������������"�"#�� $%���as follows:-

15. With 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 CRR-40-2019 (O&M) -5 2024:PHHC:048714 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:

(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 CRR-40-2019 (O&M) -4 2024:PHHC:048714 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 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. CRR-40-2019 (O&M) -5 2024:PHHC:048714 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 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.

¶7 1n the present case a"so, the respondent had initiated the crimina" prosecution o  the petitioner on the ground o  dishonour o  che)ue, however, an amount o  Rs.,,*+,+++ has been paid to the respondent and "earned counse" appearing on beha"  o  respondent has a"so made a statement that the o ence ma( be ordered to be compounded.  'onse)uent"(, b( invo:ing the powers o this 'ourt under Section ,6- o  the 3Act4  read with Section 60* 'r.P.', the parties are a""owed to compound the o ences and the petitioner is ordered to be ac)uitted o  the notice o  accusation. CRR-40-2019 (O&M) -6 2024:PHHC:048714

¶8 The present petition is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction dated 20.11.2017 and order of sentence dated 22.11.2017 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa and the judgment dated

15.12.2018 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sirsa are hereby ordered to be set aside.

¶10The petitioner is  directed to deposit an amount of Rs.18,000/- i.e. equal to 15? of the cheque amount within a period of 02 months with Punjab State Legal Services Authority. In case, the amount is not deposited with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority within a period of 02 months, the present petition shall be deemed to be dismissed.

¶11All other pending applications if any, are also disposed off, accordingly. (N.S.SHE5HAWAT)

09.04.2024             JUDGE