Delhi District Court
Aaron Infotainment Pvt. Ltd vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 24 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE03, SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 204/2023
CNR No. DLSE010035782023
1. AARON INFOTAINMENT PVT. LTD.
27/34B, 2nd Floor,
Jawala Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi110 032.
2. KAMLESH KWATRA (DIRECTOR)
27/34B, 2nd Floor,
Jawala Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi110 032.
.... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
2. M/s SPARK TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.
Through V. S. Dubey
308, EROS Apartment,
56, Nehru Place,
New Delhi110 019. .... Respondents
CR No. 204/2023 Page no....1 of 13
Aaron Infotainment Pvt. Ltd and Other Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Other
Date of institution : 31.03.2023
Date of reserving the order : 23.05.2023
Date of pronouncement : 24.05.2023
JUDGMENT
1. This is criminal revision u/s 397/399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by petitioners against impugned order dated 31.01.2023 passed by Court of Sh. C. K. Chaturvedi, Ld. Presiding Officer, Special Court (N. I. Act), SouthEast District in CC No. 616583/2017 whereby Ld. Trial Court declined compounding of present matter without consent of complainant/respondent No. 2.
2. It is stated in revision petition that respondent No. 2 filed complaint U/sec 138 of N. I. Act against petitioners alleging that accused No. 1 through its Directors No. 2 to 5 purchased Samsung mobile on credit from complainant/respondent No. 2 vide different invoices /bills No. NP3175 for sum of Rs. 4,72,219/ on 29.05.2015 and invoice No. NP3318 dated CR No. 204/2023 Page no....2 of 13 Aaron Infotainment Pvt. Ltd and Other Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Other 01.06.2018 for sum of Rs. 4,45,978/ by giving post dated cheques which were dishonoured. It is stated that thereafter, accused after service of notice made part payment of Rs. 3,00,000/ against cheque No. 550446 but remaining balance amount of Rs. 1,45,978/ and entire balance amount of Rs. 4,72,219/ towards cheque No. 550441 remained unpaid and thereafter complaint U/sec 138 of N. I. Act has been filed by respondent No. 2.
3. It is stated that during adjudication of above said complaint case, it was petitioners who moved application U/sec 147 of N. I. Act in order to compound offence U/sec 138 of N. I. Act while relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as "Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H."
4. It is stated that Ld. Trial Court has not entertained said application of petitioners and has been pleased to dismiss the same vide impugned order dated 31.01.2023.
CR No. 204/2023 Page no....3 of 13 Aaron Infotainment Pvt. Ltd and Other Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Other
5. It is stated that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that case wherein said application U/sec 147 N. I. Act has been filed by petitioners is under Section 138 of N. I. Act.
6. Following grounds have been taken by petitioners to challenge impugned order:
a) Because impugned order is totally illegal, perverse and hence, same is liable to be set aside.
b) Because impugned order has been clearly passed in violation of land mark judgment passed by Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as "Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H.".
c) Because Ld. Trial Court failed to consider vital facts of complaint as well as application U/sec 147 of N. I. Act moved by petitioners and erroneously dismissed application.
d) Because Ld Trial Court failed to consider guidelines issued by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Unilin Beheer B. V. Vs. Balaji Action Buildwell."
CR No. 204/2023 Page no....4 of 13 Aaron Infotainment Pvt. Ltd and Other Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Other
e) Because Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that precise issue was as to whether consent of parties was necessary to compound offence and it was held that basic mode and manner of effecting compounding of an offence under Section 320 Cr. P. C could not be said to be not attracted in case of compounding of offence under Section 147 of N. I. Act. It was observed that even in Meters and Instruments (Supra), court stated that though compounding requires consent of both parties but even in absence of such consent, the court in the interest of justice can, in its discretion, close proceedings.
f) Because in case titled as "M/s Anant Tools Vs. Anant Tools Jalandhar", it has been held that "the court observed that in case of JIK Industries (Supra), the precise issue was as to whether consent of parties was necessary to compound the offence and it was held that basic mode and manner of effecting the compounding of an offence under Section 320 Cr. P. C could not be said to be not attracted in case of compounding of CR No. 204/2023 Page no....5 of 13 Aaron Infotainment Pvt. Ltd and Other Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Other offence under Section 147 of N. I. Act. It was observed that even in Meters and Instruments (Supra), court stated that though compounding requires consent of both parties but even in absence of such consent, the court in the interest of justice can, in its discretion, close proceedings.
g) Because impugned order dated 31.03.2023 passed by Ld. Trial Court is bad in law and against facts as well as principle of criminal jurisprudence.
h) Because Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the fact that criminal law is not barred if allegations disclose criminal offence. In complaint of petitioners various cognizable offences is made out against accused persons.
i) Because order passed by Ld. Trial Court is against facts and circumstances of case and also against material available on record.
j) Because order passed by Ld. Trial Court is based on conjectures and surmises and has been passed without CR No. 204/2023 Page no....6 of 13 Aaron Infotainment Pvt. Ltd and Other Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Other application of judicial mind.
k) Because Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that there is sufficient evidence and material on record due to which offence can be compounded without consent of complainant.
l) Because Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate basic ingredients of criminal jurisprudence.
m) Because impugned order dated 31.01.2023 passed by Ld. Trial Court is full of contradictions, is arbitrary, against facts and circumstances of case as well as against provisions of law.
7. It is prayed to call TCR, set aside impugned order dated 31.01.2023 and to pass any other and further relief in favour of petitioners which this Court deems fit in the interest of justice.
8. I have heard arguments addressed by respective counsels and perused record including trial court record and have gone through judgments filed on behalf of petitioners.
9. Petitioners moved an application U/sec 147 of N. I. Act before Ld. Trial Court for compounding offence U/sec 138 of CR No. 204/2023 Page no....7 of 13 Aaron Infotainment Pvt. Ltd and Other Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Other N. I. Act in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babulal H." which was dismissed vide impugned order (though impugned order does not specifically talk about moving and dismissal of application by petitioners U/sec 147 of N. I. Act).
10. Ld. Trial Court in impugned order observed that petitioner No. 2 on her examination under section 313 Cr. P. C Part I admitted that she could not pay the amount due to financial difficulties and that she is ready to settle the matter. Thereafter, matter was send to Mediation Cell but matter could not be settled. Thereafter, petitioners moved an application U/sec 147 of N. I. Act seeking compounding of offence U/sec 138 of N. I. Act with respondent No. 2 which was dismissed vide impugned order.
11. Counsel for petitioners during course of arguments filed judgment in case titled as "Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babulal H. 2010 Legal Eagle (SC) 321" wherein Hon'ble CR No. 204/2023 Page no....8 of 13 Aaron Infotainment Pvt. Ltd and Other Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Other Supreme Court of India held as below: "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."
12. Counsel for petitioners further filed judgment in case titled as "Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Kanchan Mehta 2017 Legal Eagle (SC) 900" wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as below: "Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the court, in the interest of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused."
CR No. 204/2023 Page no....9 of 13 Aaron Infotainment Pvt. Ltd and Other Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Other
13. Counsel for petitioner further filed judgment in case titled as "M/s Anant Tools (Unit No. II) Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. M/s Anant Tools Pvt. Ltd., Jalandhar decided on 20.09.2018" wherein Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana discussed ratio in JIK Industries Limited and Others V/s Amarlal V. Junani and Another 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 822 wherein it was held as below: "The above said judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra), has specifically been considered by the subsequent Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of JIK Industries Limited's (supra). While explaining the scope of consideration in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JIK Industries Limited's (supra), has held that; this judgment cannot be interpreted to mean that applicability of Section 320 Cr.P.C stands altogether obliterated due to use of nonobstante clause in Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court in JIK Industries Limited's case (supra) also held that the basic ingredients of Section 320 Cr.P.C do not stand excluded merely because of uses of nonobstante clause in Section It has CR No. 204/2023 Page no....10 of 13 Aaron Infotainment Pvt. Ltd and Other Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Other been further held that the use of the nonobstante clause in a statute has to be considered with reference to the context in which it has been used. Accordingly, it has been held that the basic ingredient of compounding, i.e., the consent of the other side, the complainant in the present case, cannot be dispensed with while considering any application 8 of 10 CRMM17300 of 2017 (O&M) and connected cases for compounding. This proposition qua compounding has been contrasted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in this judgment, as against the proceedings where the quashing of a complaint is sought by the accused. The Supreme Court has held that quashing of a complaint stands on a different footing and it can be ordered even without the consent of the complainant. However, compounding is altogether a different concept, and the same cannot be resorted to or applied by the Court; except with the consent of the complainant."
14. Ratio in JIK Industries Limited (Supra) says that consent of complainant cannot be dispensed with while considering any application for compounding.
15. Counsel for respondent No. 2 during course of arguments submitted that complaint U/sec 138 of N. I. Act was filed by CR No. 204/2023 Page no....11 of 13 Aaron Infotainment Pvt. Ltd and Other Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Other respondent No. 2 before Ld. Trial Court way back in the year 2015 and after fighting the case for almost 08 years, now petitioners want compounding of offence U/sec 138 of N. I. Act with respondent No. 2 after giving 10% extra of cheque amount which is not acceptable to respondent No. 2.
16. In Meters and Instruments Private Limited (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India directed closing of proceedings U/sec 138 of N. I. Act even without consent of complainant for compounding on being satisfied that complainant has been duly compensated.
17. In this case, complainant /respondent No. 2 is not satisfied with cheque amount and 10% extra of cheque amount after fighting litigation for about 08 years. Transaction between parties was commercial transaction and to my mind, offering 10% extra of the cheque amount may not adequately compensate respondent No. 2/ complainant. In these circumstances and in view of withholding of consent for CR No. 204/2023 Page no....12 of 13 Aaron Infotainment Pvt. Ltd and Other Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Other compounding on part of complainant /respondent No. 2, I am of the view that view taken by Ld. Trial Court in impugned order cannot be said to be perverse or not in accordance with law. There is no illegality or infirmity in impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court. Revision petition filed by petitioner is without merits and is accordingly dismissed.
18. Let copy of this judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court alongwith TCR.
19. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated and Announced (Sonu Agnihotri)
in the open court ASJ03 (SouthEast),
on 24.05.2023 Saket Courts, Delhi
CR No. 204/2023 Page no....13 of 13
Aaron Infotainment Pvt. Ltd and Other Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Other