Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Kumar vs The Gurdaspur Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd on 21 December, 2012
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CRM M-26467 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH
CRM M-26467 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: December 21, 2012
Vijay Kumar ... Petitioner
Versus
The Gurdaspur Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?.
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate,
for the respondent.
Paramjeet Singh,J. (Oral)
Present petition has been preferred by the petitioner-Vijay Kumar under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of criminal complaint No.208 of 31.03.2009 (Annexure P/1) and subsequent summoning order dated 02.08.2010 (Annexure P/3) pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathankot.
Brief facts of the case are that the criminal complaint was filed by the respondent-complainant against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with the averments that the petitioner took a loan from the complainant and the said loan amount was repayable in CRM M-26467 of 2012 2 installments as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The petitioner did not pay the installments regularly in accordance with the loan agreement with the result loan account became irregular and the petitioner-accused in order to pay the arrears of the loan account issued a cheque bearing No. 25432 dated 23.02.2009. Said cheque on presentation for encashment was dishonoured with the remarks "insufficient funds". Thereafter, the complainant served legal notice dated 26.02.2009 upon the accused, but the accused failed to comply with the notice. Hence, the complaint.
After recording preliminary evidence, the accused-petitioner was summoned under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide order dated 02.08.2010 (Aannexure P/3).
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the parties state that the petitioner has already paid the entire loan amount including the cheque amount.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions from the respondent, states that the respondent would have no objection, if the present criminal complaint along with consequential proceedings, arising out of it, are quashed.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Damodar S. Prabhu versus Sayed Bablal H. reported in 2010(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 851, has held as under:-
"15. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque CRM M-26467 of 2012 3 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 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 CRM M-26467 of 2012 4 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 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." Consequently, in view of statement of the learned counsel for the respondent and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 02.08.2010 (Annexure P/3) is set aside and criminal complaint filed by the complainant is quashed, subject to deposit of 15% of the cheque amount of Rs. 2,32,620/- i.e. Rs.34,893/- with the State Legal Services Authority, Punjab within one month from today and if not paid then same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and the petitioner will have to face trial.
December 21, 2012 [ Paramjeet Singh ] vkd Judge