Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Sonepat Poultry Market And Anr vs M/S Sky Lark Hatcheries P. Ltd on 24 May, 2013
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
CRR No.853 of 2012 and CRR No.854 of 2012
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) CRR No.853 of 2012
Date of Decision : 24.5.2013
M/s Sonepat Poultry Market and anr.
.......Petitioners
Versus
M/s Sky Lark Hatcheries P. Ltd.
.......Respondent
(2)
CRR No.854 of 2012
Date of Decision : 24.5.2013
M/s Sonepat Poultry Market and anr.
.......Petitioners
Versus
M/s Sky Lark Hatcheries P. Ltd.
.......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Charanjit Singh Bakshi, Advocate for the
petitioners.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the respondent,
assisted by Mr.Ranbir Sharma, complainant.
****
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.(Oral)
The present criminal revisions are directed against the judgment dated 12.3.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jind, CRR No.853 of 2012 and CRR No.854 of 2012 -2- in Crl. Appeal Nos.143 and 145 of 2011, vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Safidon dated 1.10.2011/5.10.2011, in Crl. Complaint case No.128-2 of 2008, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, was modified, whereby, enhancing the RI from one year to two years RI, and the fine from Rs.1,000/- to double the amount of cheque i.e. Rs.20 lacs, out of which 50% was ordered to be paid to the complainant- respondent as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the appeal filed by M/s Sky Lark Hatcheries P. Ltd- respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent/complainant) and dismissing the appeal of M/s Sonepat Poultry Market and anr.(hereinafter referred to the as the petitioners).
Aggrieved against the judgments of the learned Sessions Judge dated 12.3.2012, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the revision petitions No.853 and 854 of 2012, which are being disposed of by this single judgment. These revisions were admitted on 21.5.2012, and the sentence imposed upon the petitioners was ordered to be suspended during the pendency of these revision petitions.
The petitioners filed Crl. Misc. No.27680-81 of 2013 and Crl. Misc. No.27649-27650 of 2013, for placing on record the original compromise Annexure P-1 dated 21.5.2013, in both the criminal revisions, which are allowed. Mr. Ranbir Sharma, representative of the respondent is present in Court and confirmed the compromise arrived at between the parties.
CRR No.853 of 2012 and CRR No.854 of 2012 -3- I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
Learned counsel for the parties state that the dispute has been settled amicably, in terms of compromise-deed dated 21.5.2013, (Annexure P-1) and the same are reproduced as under:-
"That the Ist party has been convicted in complaints filed by the IInd party under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Ist party has filed Criminal revision Nos.853 of 2012, 854 of 2012, 855 of 2012, 856 of 2012, 857 of 2012, 858 of 2012, 859 of 2012, 860 of 2012, 861 of 2012, 862 of 2012, 863 of 2012, 864 of 2012, 865 of 2012, 866 of 2012, 867 of 2012, 868 of 2012, 869 of 2012 and 870 of 2012 challenging his conviction and sentence.
That with the intervention of the respectables, relatives of both the parties and especially in the light of the long business relationship existing between the parties, the parties have resolved to settled their dispute amicably. Accordingly a one time settlement has been arrived at between the parties. An amount of Rs.20 lakhs as full and final payment stands paid by the Ist party to the IInd party in lieu of settlement in all the above stated matters.
That the IInd party is left with no grievance whatsoever against the Ist party. The IInd party in lieu of this compromise has no objection if the aforementioned Criminal CRR No.853 of 2012 and CRR No.854 of 2012 -4- Revision are allowed and the conviction and sentence granted by the Courts below is set aside. The IInd party has no claim left against the Ist party.
The IInd party is making this declaration on its own free will and volition and without any pressure or fear. The contents of this compromise have been read out and duly explained in vernacular to both the parties and the parties have understood the contents thereof. This compromise is being recorded upon the joint instructions of both the parties."
Learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions from Mr. Ranbir Sharma, representative of the respondent-complainant, who is present in Court today, states that the petitioner has made full and final payment of Rs.20 lacs against all the revision petitions referred in the compromise Annexure P-1. Learned counsel further states that the complainant has no objection, in case the present revision petition is allowed, the judgments of conviction and sentence of both the Courts below are set aside and the petitioners are acquitted in all the complaint cases, including the present one, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record an affidavit of Haji Abdul Rasheed son of Mohd. Iliyas, Proprietor M/s Sonepat Poultry Market - the revision petitioner, to the above effect.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Damodar S. Prabhu Versus Sayed Bablal H., reported in 2010(2) Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal) 851 = (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 663 CRR No.853 of 2012 and CRR No.854 of 2012 -5- framed the following 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 CRR No.853 of 2012 and CRR No.854 of 2012 -6- 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 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."
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the costs of litigation at the rate of 15% is on the higher side because the total disputed amount in all the complaint cases was Rs.83,19,632/-. He prays that the costs may be reduced. This Court finds no force in this contention. It has been held in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (surpa) that "The graded scheme for imposing costs is a means to CRR No.853 of 2012 and CRR No.854 of 2012 -7- 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 reduced the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance."
The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to satisfy this Court as to why the cost of litigation be reduced. He could not point out any special circumstance for reducing the cost of litigation. The cheque amount was a commercial transaction which the petitioners might have invested in the business to gain profit. The complaint was filed on 28.4.2008 and the matter remained pending before the lower to higher judicial machinery till today, who have spent sufficient time in this private lis. No Court fee is payable on complaint cases. There is no special reason to deviate from the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra), in this case.
Consequently, in view of the compromise Annexure P-1, these criminal revision petition Nos.853 and 854 of 2012 are allowed, impugned judgments and orders of sentence of both the Courts below are set aside and criminal complaint case No.128-2 of 2008, CRR No.853 of 2012 and CRR No.854 of 2012 -8- decided on 1.10.2011 titled M/s Sky Lark Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s Sonepat Poultry Market and another, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act are quashed subject to deposit of 15% of the cheque amount of Rs.10 lacs with the State Legal Services Authority, Haryana within three months from the receipt of certified copy of this judgment, failing which, these criminal revision petitions No.853 and 854 of 2012 will be deemed to be dismissed without notice.
A copy of this judgment be sent to the Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, Haryana for information and necessary action.
( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 24.5.2013 JUDGE Brij Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes