Allowed

Reena Roy v. Babu Ram Garg (Since Deceased) Thrugh Lrs and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Jan 2017CRR/2566/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal revision under Section 138 N.I. Act where the complainant and petitioner had reached a full compromise. The settlement covered both civil and criminal disputes, leading the court to dispose of the matter.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of conviction dated 23.5.2009 and judgment dated 18.9.2009 set aside; revision petition disposed of.

Reena Roy Vs Babu Ram Garg (Since Deceased) Thrugh… — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Revision No. 2566 of 2009 Date of decision : January 19, 2017

¶3

Reena Roy ....Petitioner

¶4

versus

¶5

Babu Ram Garg and another

¶6

....Respondents

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh

¶8

Present : Mr.Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Petitioner Reena Roy in person.

¶9

Mr. S.S.Virk, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Kavita widow/LR of Babu Ram Garg-respondent no. 1

¶10

Mr. Nischal Mann, DAG, Haryana, for respondent no. 2

¶11

Fateh Deep Singh, J. (Oral)

¶12

Kavita widow/LR of Babu Ram Garg respondent no. 1/complainant has made statement that she has voluntarily and on her own effected compromise with petitioner Reena Roy who too has accepted the factum of this compromise. Both the parties have categorically stated that in respect of cheque in question, the complainant had received full and final settlement amount and nothing is due towards the petitioner and both the parties have undertaken that all disputes arising out of the cheque in question between them be it civil or criminal stands settled for all times to come and that the matter before this Court be allowed to be compounded.

¶13

In the light of the stand of the two sides based on the instructions of their respective clients that the parties have effected

¶14

Dalbir Singh Tiwana 2017.01.24 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

¶15

Criminal Revision No. 2566 of 2009 -2-

¶16

compromise and do not want to pursue with this litigation and that the same be put to a decent burial in the light of the settled position of law laid down in G.Sivarajan Vs. Little Flower Kuries & Enterprises Ltd. & Anr., 2005 (2) DCR 408 and Ritesh Gupta vs. State of Punjab and another, 2009(3) RCR (Crl.) 61, being offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, being compoundable and thus, in the light of their compromise, the Courts should not come in a way of settlement as the compromise will go a long way in ironing out the differences and betterment of the relations between the parties, in view of which judgment of conviction dated 23.5.2009 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat as well as judgment dated 18.9.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat are hereby set aside and the revision petition stands disposed off accordingly.

¶17

( Fateh Deep Singh ) January 19, 2017 Judge 'tiwana' Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No Whether Reportable ? Yes/No

¶18

Dalbir Singh Tiwana 2017.01.24 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

Reena Roy v. Babu Ram Garg (Since Deceased) Thrugh Lrs and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reena Roy v. Babu Ram Garg (Since Deceased) Thrugh Lrs and Anr.

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

Rajpal Singh Vs State of Haryana

Menka & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Karanjit Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Bhupinder Kumar Bhanot Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Noor Mohammad Vs State of Haryana

Sahid and Another Vs State of Haryana