2017 (4) TMI 1418 - HC - Indian Laws

Compounding of Offence - section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Held that - The perusal of the impugned order dated 03.04.2017 shows that the order passed by learned Magistrate is correct, as per evidence and law. In no way, the order can be held as illegal nor it is liable to be set aside. The compounding of the offence has been provided under Section 320 Cr.P.C. but nothing has been shown that other party can be compelled to compromise with the accused. The Court cannot impose compromise on the complainant by passing the order. It is clear in the present case that the complainant is not agreeing to compromise, therefore, the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate is correct, as per evidence and law and does not require interference from this Court. There is no ground is made out for quashing the complaints. In no way, it can be held that the filing of the complaints amount to abuse of process of law or miscarriage of justice - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing complaints, dismissal of application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. for personal exemption, dismissal of application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for compounding the offence.

Analysis:
The petitions were filed seeking to quash complaints and orders related to compounding offences. The petitioners argued that they made an offer to pay the amount, filed applications for compounding the offences, and presented demand drafts to discharge their liability. However, the court allowed only one demand draft to be placed on file, adjourned the cases, and referred them to Mediation Centre. Despite efforts at mediation, the complainant party did not come forward to settle the dispute amicably. The trial court dismissed the application based on the Supreme Court ruling that compounding of offences cannot be allowed unless the complainant is ready and willing to do so, even if the accused is willing to deposit the cheque amount. The court held that the legislature did not intend to compel the complainant to compound the offence if the accused is ready to pay. The order of the trial court was deemed correct as per evidence and law, and not illegal or liable to be set aside.

The judgment further addressed the issue of personal exemption, where the accused sought exemption from appearing in court due to business commitments. The trial court exercised discretion and rightly dismissed the application for exemption, stating that the accused must appear on the date fixed by the court, which may be once a month. The High Court found no grounds for quashing the complaints, stating that the filing of complaints did not amount to an abuse of process of law or miscarriage of justice. Consequently, all petitions were dismissed for lack of merit.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision regarding the compounding of offences and the refusal of personal exemption, finding no legal basis to quash the complaints. The judgment emphasized the importance of complainant willingness in compounding offences and the trial court's discretion in granting personal exemptions based on the facts of the case.