TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 549
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arrant of arrest dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the fact that the matter has been compromised. Respondent No.1-Gurpreet Singh had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 against the present petitioner for dishonour of cheque dated 08.01.2011 amounting to Rs. 2,45,000/- drawn upon Axis Bank Limited, Faridkot. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gidderbaha, after considering the entire evidence and documents on record, had convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, as under:- Section Imprisonment Fine In default of payment of fine 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Two Years RI Rs. 5000/- RI for one month Fine paid. The copy of judgment be supplied to the convict, free of costs. file be consigned to the record room after due completion. Pronounced: 06.04.2015 Sd/- (Sudhir Kumar), PCS, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gidderbaha" An appeal was filed by the petitioner against the said order and vide order dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure P-3), when the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant Singh and it has been prepared from the State Bank of India. Till then, this Bank Draft is not encashed in the Account of the first party, the compromise will be considered as cancelled and at the time when this Bank Draft will be cashed in favour of the first party-Gurpreet Singh, tent he first party will be bound to give the Statement in favour of the second party in the above said cases in the Ld. Court. If, due to any reason, the first party could not come to give the statement in the court, then in his absence, this compromise will be admissible in the court. This compromise has been held in lieu of the total amount of the above said Rs. 3.00 Lacs (Rs. 300000). After this, the first party will not submit any other claim and he has been given his due right. These amount of Rs. 3.00 Lacs (Rs. 300000/-) will be treated as full and final settlement and the first party will not be entitled to take any other amount, except the above said, from the Second party. 4. That after today, the first party will not file any kind of case or any other case, Civil or Criminal in any court or with the Police against Sukhwant Singh or his father, Gurnam Singh or against any other his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hed and even the judgment of conviction was set aside on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the latest judgment dated 29.09.2021 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal no.1489 of 2012 titled as "Ramgopal & Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh" and connected matter and has prayed that the present petition be allowed. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.1 has submitted that the compromise is genuine and bonafide and has been entered into without any coercion, undue influence and pressure and would help in bringing out peace and harmony between the families of the complainant and the petitioner. He has thus, prayed that the present petition be allowed. Learned State Counsel has submitted that the present case emanates from a complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and thus, State of Punjab, does not have any role in the present case. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ramgopal and Anr.'s case (supra) has discussed in detail the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. along with other issues. The relevant portion....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. and Laxmi Narayan (Supra). xxx xxx xxx 19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xxx--xxx This Court in the case of Sube Singh and another Versus State of Haryana and another 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 has considered the compounding of offences at the appellate stage and has observed that even when appeal against the conviction is pending before the Sessions Court and parties entered into a compromise, the High Court is vested unparallel power under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash criminal proceedings at any stage so as to secure the ends of justice and has observed as under:- "15. The refusal to invoke power under Section 320 CrPC, however, does not debar the High Court from resorting to its inherent power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code and pass an appropriate order so as to secure the ends of justice. 16. As regards the doubt expressed by the learned Single Judge whether the inherent power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties can be invoked even if the accused has been held guilty and convicted by the trial Court, we find that in Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., 2008(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 910 : (2008)5 SCC 794, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder dated 16.03.2009 passed in Criminal Case No. 425-1 of 2000 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, on the basis of compromise dated 08.08.2011 arrived at between them and their step-mother respondent No.2 (Smt. Reshma Devi) w/o late Rajmal qua the petitioners only. As a necessary corollary, the criminal complaint filed by respondent No.2 is dismissed qua the petitioners on the basis of above-stated compromise. Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the above- mentioned order dated 16.03.2009 would be rendered infructuous and shall be sodeclared by the first Appellate Court at Hisar." Similarly, in the case of Baghel Singh Versus State of Punjab 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 578, whereby the accused was convicted under Section 326 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, the parties entered into compromise during the pendency of the appeal. This Court while relying upon the judgment of Lal Chand Versus State of Haryana, 2009 (5) RCR (Criminal) 838 and Chhota Singh Versus State of Punjab 1997(2) RCR (Criminal) 392 allowed the compounding of offence in respect of offence under Section 326 IPC at the appellate stage with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....low." Reliance in the above said judgment was also placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra) and thus, as per settled law, this Court has the power to set aside the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner on the basis of a valid compromise. The compromise in the present case is genuine and valid. Keeping in view the law laid down in the above said judgment, more so, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramgopal & Anr's case (supra), the relevant parameters for consideration as laid down in the said judgment, would be considered by this Court. Firstly, the occurrence which has been involved in the present petition can be categorized as purely personal/criminal act of private nature. Secondly, in the present case, there is no injury caused to any person and complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, has been registered on account of a monetary dispute, which has been settled and the allegations in the case do not exhibit an element of mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature. The acquittal in the present case would not override public interest. Thirdly, since t....