ANIL KUMAR Vs. PAWAN KUMAR AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of Complaint No. 556/2 dated 17.05.2007 (Annexure P-1) filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') and the order dated 11.08.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, vide which the application moved by the petitioner for compounding of the offence in the light of his deposit of Rs. 4,000/- with the trial Court on the first date when the petitioner was to appear before the Court, as per the summoning order, was rejected by the Court. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, in the light of Section 147 of the Act, is entitled to compounding of the offence and in case the same not acceptable to the complainant then quashing of the complaint in the light of his deposit of the amount for which the cheque was issued which he had defaulted in payment leading to the initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner under the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the light of judgments of the Supreme Court in Smt. Nancy Bhakoo v. Sh. Gunar Singh, 2010 2 RCR(Cri) 478and Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 2 RCR(Cri) 851as also a judgment of this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-23421 of 2008 titled as 'Balbir Singh v. M/s. Aggarwal Mfg. Co. decided on 11.11.2010, prays for quashing of the complaint along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) It needs mention here that as per the pleadings petitioner is a tenant under the respondent on a monthly rent of the premises fixed at Rs. 4,000/- and the cheque in question was given as a security of rent for one month. The respondent has presented the cheque in the bank despite the fact that nothing was due towards rent as there was regular payment of rent by the petitioner. Eviction proceedings were initiated by the respondent which was not contested by the petitioner.

(3.) In the present case, as the facts reveal on receipt of summons from the Court on a complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Act for bouncing of a cheque amounting to Rs. 4,000/- due to insufficiency of funds in the account, the petitioner deposited the said amount of Rs. 4,000/- in the trial Court on his date of first appearance. Thereafter, he moved an application for compounding of the offence under Section 147 of the Act which has been dismissed by the Court vide order dated 11.8.2010. The petitioner approached this Court at a stage when the complainant had refused to receive the amount for which the cheque in question was issued and to compound the offence. In this situation the Court is being called upon to decide the issue as to whether in such a situation the complaint can be quashed especially when the petitioner is offering another Rs. 4,000/- over and above the amount due and deposited in Court which would take care of the loss, if any, which respondent-complainant would have incurred from the date of issue of cheque till date.