Allowed

Subhash Nagpal & Anr. v. Neeraj Kakkar

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Feb 2012CRM-M/2457/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a complaint and summoning order under the Negotiable Instruments Act and IPC. The Court held that insisting on adjudication after the accused offered to pay the cheque amount with interest constituted an abuse of the process of the court.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the complaint dated 29.10.2009 and summoning order dated 8.4.2010, subject to deposit of the cheque amount plus 10% interest via bank draft within 10 days.

Subhash Nagpal & Anr. Vs Neeraj Kakkar — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM M-2457 of 2011 Date of Decision:16.2.2012

¶3

Subash Nagpal and another

.... Petitioners

Versus

Neeraj Kakkar

.... Respondent

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

Present: Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the respondent.

¶10

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint dated 29.10.2009 (P-1) titled complaint case No.128 of 2009 Neeraj Kakkar Versus Subash Nagpal etc. filed under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 read with Section 420 IPC and the summoning order dated 8.4.2010 (P-3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, District Court Ferozepur.

¶16

Admittedly on 28.9.2010, petitioner No.1 through his counsel had appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur and without prejudice to the challenge of the complaint on merits, filed an application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, towards the compounding of the offence. It is duly informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is willing to pay the entire cheque amount and also offered to pay the same vide cheque bearing No.021353 drawn from HDFC Bank, K.G. Marg, New Delhi for an amount of

¶17

CRM M-2457 of 2011

¶18

-2-

¶19

Rs.19,394/-. However, the complainant refused to accept the said amount and stated that he would like to proceed further with the said complaint.

¶20

Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present petition in which notice of motion was issued vide order dated 27.1.2011 and the further proceedings before the trial Court were stayed on the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a cheque of Rs.19394/- had been submitted in the Court on 28^th September 2010 and the complainant has refused to accept the same. Thereafter, upon service, learned counsel for the respondent took time to seek instructions qua compounding of the offence in case payment of interest from the date the cheque in question was dishonoured uptil the date when it was deposited before the trial Court is also paid by the petitioner.

¶21

Today learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions from his client submitted that the petitioner is ready to make the payment at the rate of 10% interest from the date the cheque in question was dishonoured uptil the date when it was deposited before the trial Court.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent although has no objection to the compunding of the offence but stated that respondent would be satisfied in case petitioners pay litigation expenses as well.

¶23

This Court does not think it proper to burden the petitioner with the said litigation expenses. The petitioner had already submitted the disputed cheque amount in the Court on 28^th September 2010. It was the respondent, who had refused to accept the same and proceeded to pursue the said complaint and rather forced the petitioner to approach this Court.

¶24

This Court in Criminal Misc. No.M-23421 of 2008 decided on 11.11.2010 titled as Balbir Singh v. M/s Aggarwal Mfg. Co. held as under:

¶25

CRM M-2457 of 2011 -3-

¶26

“The provisions of Section 147 of the Act, which makes all the offences under the Act compoundable and the law laid down to the effect that compounding of the offences under the Act would be permissible even after conviction would indicate the manner in which the Courts should deal with an offence allegedly committed under the Act. In a situation, where the accused is ready and willing to pay the amount of the cheque in question, the insistence of the complainant for an adjudication on merits by refusing to accept the amount, itself, would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.” The petitioners herein was willing to pay the entire cheque amount and also offered to pay the same vide cheque bearing No.021353 drawn from HDFC Bank, K.G. Marg, New Delhi for an amount of Rs.19,394/- as early as on the second date of hearing before the trial Court as had also offered before this Court to make the payment of interest at the rate of 10% from the date the cheque in question was dishonoured uptil the date when it was deposited before the trial Court.

¶27

In view of the facts narrated above, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the present proceedings before the trial Court are nothing but misuse of the process of law and the proceedings against the petitioners in complaint dated 29.10.2009 (P-1) titled complaint case No.128 of 2009 Neeraj Kakkar Versus Subash Nagpal etc. filed under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 read with Section 420 IPC and the summoning order dated 8.4.2010 (P-3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, District Court Ferozepur, are quashed in the interest of justice subject to the condition that the petitioners will

¶28

CRM M-2457 of 2011

¶29

-4-

¶30

deposit the consolidated amount of the dishonoured cheque alongwith interest at the rate of 10% from the date it was dishonoured till its deposit in the form of bank draft with Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within 10 days from today. Thereafter, the said bank draft may be received by the complainant.

¶31

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in complaint dated 29.10.2009 (P-1) titled complaint case No.128 of 2009 Neeraj Kakkar Versus Subash Nagpal etc. filed under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 read with Section 420 IPC and the summoning order dated 8.4.2010 (P-3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, District Court Ferozepur shll stand quashed.

¶32

16.2.2012 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE

Subhash Nagpal & Anr. v. Neeraj Kakkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Nagpal & Anr. v. Neeraj Kakkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kirpal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Daljit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Balwinder Singh @ Kaka Vs State of Punjab

Mukesh Goel and Anr. Vs M/S Euro Containers

Avnish Jain Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Satbir Alias Sattu and Ors. Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.