TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 940
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....am Sunder Bansal, who is the proprietor of M/s. Shiva International. Complaint No. 1527 of 2016 was filed by Balvir Singh Multani against Ms/ Shiv International and Shyam Sunder Bansal with respect to the dishonor of cheque No. 018873 dated 07.12.2015 for a sum of Rs. 17,325/- drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh in which the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 21.07.2017 convicted the above-said Shyam Sunder Bansal and M/s. Shiva International under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act of 1881) and sentenced Shyam Sunder Bansal to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 06 months and also directed them to pay compensation of the amount of Rs. 17,325/-. The Criminal Appeal No. 471, filed by the above-said M/s. Shiva International and Shyam Sunder Bansal, was then dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 08.01.2019. Against the said orders, CRR-120-2019 has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the judgment and sentence of conviction. Complaint No. 1526 of 2016 was filed by Sonia Multani against M/s. Balaji Enterprises and its proprietor Hitesh Ban....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... D003, Maya Garden, Phase- I VIP Road, Zirakpur, District Mohali. 2. Shyam Sunder Bansal, aged 66 years, R/o H. No. D003, Maya Garden, Phase- I VIP Road, Zirakpur, District Mohali. .....First Party AND 1. Sonia Multani W/o Balbir Singh Multani R/o H. No. 2016, Phase- VII, Sector 61, Mohali. 2. Balvir Singh Multani R/o H. No. 2016, Phase- VII, Sector 61, Mohali. (Represented through his wife-Sonia Multani). ......Second Party on this day of 11th October 2021 WHEREAS 1. The applicant-petitioner convicted under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act and petitioner No. 2 Shyam Sunder Bansal was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The cheque which was dishonored No. 018873 was dated 17.12.2015 and was directed to pay a compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., to the complainant/ respondent an amount equivalent to the cheque i.e. Rs. 17,325/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand and Three Hundred Twenty Five). The amount was deposited in the shape of the demand draft before the Lower Court. 2. Further two Cheques bearing No. 020508 and 020509 for an amount of Rs. 37,125/- respectively....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een the parties qua the present dispute. 11. The parties further undertake not to initiate or institute any unwanted litigation against each other and their family arising out of the matter in dispute. 12. This compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure, undue influence or misrepresentation and both the parties have agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement. Both the parties shall be bound with the terms and conditions of this compromise. 13. It has been further agreed between the parties, that in case of breach of this settlement by either of the parties, then the respective parties shall be entitled to move appropriate application for seeking revival of their respective litigations, including filing of appropriate litigation before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 14. It has been further decided between the parties that in case of necessity, both the parties shall be free to present the copy of the above compromise before any authority or court if the same is required to witness the execution of the compromise or to settle any pending controversy between the parties. 15. The parties h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction in case the revision petitions are disposed of as the matter stands compromised and in fact, in the present case, State has no role to play. From the above facts, it is apparent that both the contesting parties are ad idem with respect to the fact that the compromise has been effected between the parties without any pressure, threat or undue influence and the terms of the said compromise have been duly complied with. The compromise would go a long way in maintaining the peace and harmony between the parties and thus, a prayer has been made to the Court for compounding the offence in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 320 (6) Cr.P.C. Since the offence relating to dishonour of cheque has a compensatory profile and is required to have precedence over punitive mechanism, therefore, the present revision petitions deserve to be allowed. This Court in a judgment dated 09.03.2017 passed in CRR no. 390 of 2017 titled as "Kuldeep Singh vs. Vijay Kumar and another" has held as under:- "Reliance can be placed on Kaushalya Devi Massand vs. Roopkishore Khore, 2011 (2) RCR (Criminal) 298 and Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal, AIR ....