Crl. Rev. No.474 of 2011 -1- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No.474 of 2011 Date of decision 09.03.2011 Rajinder Kumar Sharma .....Petitioner Versus Kulwinder Singh and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Harminderjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate, for the respondent No.1. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab. RITU BAHRI,J. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 9.2.2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Patiala whereby the order dated 3.12.2008 passed by Sub Division Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura was upheld. Counsel for the petitioner states that he has deposited Rs.21,000/- to the Legal Services Authority towards 15% of 1,40,000/-. In view of the affidavit filed by respondent No.1, the matter has been compromised between the parties with the intervention of the respectables of the society, according to which the petitioner has already given Rs.1,40,000/- to him in full satisfaction to the disputed amount and the respondent no.1 has no objection if conviction of the petitioner is set aside. Reference has been made on an observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the permissibility of the compuding of an offence is Crl. Rev. No.474 of 2011 -2- linked to te perceived seriousness of the offence and the nature of the remedy provided. The view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Damodar S. Prabhu Versus Sayed Babalal H . reported as 2010(2) R.C.R. (Criminal)851 is discernible from para No.12, which reads as under:- "12. It is evident that the permissibility of the compounding of an offence is linked to the perceived seriousness of the offence and the nature of the remedy provided. On this point we can refer to the following extracts from an academic commentary [Cited from: K.N.C. Pillai, R.V. Kelkar's Criminal Procedure, 5th edn. (Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 2008) at p.444:- “ A crime is essentially a wrong against the society and the State. Therefore, any compromise between the accused person and the individual victim of the crime should not absolve the accused from criminal responsibility. However, where the offences are essentially of a private nature and relatively not quite serious, the Code considers it expedient to recognize some of them as compoundable offences and some others as compoundable only with the permission of the court....” xxxx xx xx xxx The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed in relation to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing and has framed guidelines to impose costs on parties to discourage the litigants from Crl. Rev. No.474 of 2011 -3- unduly delaying the compounding of offence. The following directions have been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra):- "15. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque 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 Crl. Rev. No.474 of 2011 -4- 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 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 Session, 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." Crl. Rev. No.474 of 2011 -5- In view of the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the affidavit filed by the complainant, the order dated 9.2.2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Patiala and the order dated 3.12.2008 passed by Sub Division Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura are quashed with all the consequential proceedings. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Secretary of this Bench. Disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) 09.03.2011 JUDGE Jyoti 1