2008 (3) TMI 624 - SC - Companies Law

Why the parties entered into a settlement is not a matter for our consideration. We are merely suggesting that such settlement was permissible in law. Ex-facie, it does not violate any public policy and not otherwise inequitable. No case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. However, the appellant shall be at liberty to approach the concerned Bar Council or file an appropriate action against the lawyer concerned.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis:
The case involved a complaint filed against the respondent for dishonoring a cheque, leading to a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court sentenced the respondent to imprisonment and a fine, which was upheld on appeal. Subsequently, a compromise was reached between the parties, resulting in the High Court modifying the order to pay a further sum and a fine, setting aside the imprisonment sentence. However, the respondent's refusal to accept the settlement amount led to a recall application being filed, which was rejected by the High Court citing Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.

The appellant argued that the settlement terms were filed without her express instructions, alleging fraud by her lawyer. The court noted that under Section 147 of the NI Act, offenses are compoundable, allowing for settlements between parties without the need for affidavits. Referring to precedent, the court emphasized the binding nature of settlements reached by legal representatives on behalf of litigants. Despite the appellant's dissatisfaction with the settlement amount, the court found no grounds for interference.

The court highlighted the limitations under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C., barring alteration of a judgment once signed, except for clerical errors. It was noted that the High Court's modification of the sentence was impermissible under this provision. While acknowledging the possibility of fraud justifying a review under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the court found no such grounds established in this case. The appellant's verification of serious allegations against her lawyer was deemed unwarranted, and no evidence supported the claims made in the recall application.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that the settlement was legally permissible and did not violate public policy. The appellant was granted the option to pursue action against her lawyer through the Bar Council or appropriate legal channels.