Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarsem Singh vs Sukhwinder Singh on 26 March, 2013
CRR No. 3043 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 3043 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 26.03.2013
Tarsem Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
Sukhwinder Singh ...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.D.S.Sandhu, Advocate
for the respondent.
***
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
CRM No. 16028 of 2013 This application has been filed for allowing the parties to compound the offence in the present case.
For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed and the parties are allowed to compound the offence as envisaged under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
CRM No. 16027 of 2013
CRM allowed as prayed for. Compromise deed Annexure P-1 taken on record.
CRR No. 3043 of 2011(O&M)
The present criminal revision petition has been filed against concurrent orders of conviction passed against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act whereby he was sentenced to CRR No. 3043 of 2011 2 undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay ` 10,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner borrowed a sum of `12,00,000/- from the respondent-complainant on 8.1.2007 promising to return the same in March, 2008. For discharging his legal liability the petitioner issued a cheque bearing no. 559880 dated 18.4.2008 for a sum of ` 9,85,000/- drawn on UCO Bank, Court Road, Amritsar in favour of the complainant-respondent but when the latter presented the same in his bank, it was returned with the remarks "insufficient funds". The complainant also issued a legal notice to the petitioner to make the payment but to no avail. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint in which the petitioner, after complete trial, was convicted in the manner as stated above. That is why he has filed the present revision petition.
The parties have compromised the matter. The complainant is present in Court as identified by his counsel. He states that the entire payment has been made to him and he does not wish to continue the present complaint any further. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the amount of ` 2 lacs lying deposited with the trial Court in pursuance of the order dated 24.05.2012 of this Court, may be ordered to be returned to the petitioner.
Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2007(3) R.C.R. (Crl.) 1052 for quashing the prosecution when parties entered into compromise.
Consequently, this petition is allowed and the complaint and all CRR No. 3043 of 2011 3 the subsequent proceedings are quashed. It is ordered that the amount of ` 2 lacs lying deposited with the trial Court be returned to the petitioner against proper receipt.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending Criminal Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI )
March 26, 2013 JUDGE
sunita