2017 (3) TMI 1865 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - discharge of legal liability or not - compromise between the parties have been arrived at - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT - Both the contesting parties are ad idem that the compromise has been executed between them without there being any pressure, threat or undue influence and the same was witnessed by independent witnesses namely Gurtej Singh, Numberdar and Bhola Singh. The compromise would go in a long way to maintain peace and harmony between the parties. Indulgence of this Court is being sought for compounding the offence in terms of Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 320(6) Cr.P.C. - The offence relating to dishonour of cheque is having compensatory profile and it should be given precedence over punitive mechanism. The offence is almost a civil wrong which has been clothed in a criminal overtone. Therefore, priority should be given to compensatory mechanism. The compromise in question would serve as a everlasting tool in favour of the parties for which indulgence can be given by this Court. The revisional exercise would also be in consonance with the spirit of Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision petition against conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Compounding of the offence under Section 320(6), Cr.P.C. read with Section 482, Cr.P.C.

Issue 1: Revision petition against conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

The case involves a revision petition arising from a judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, upholding the conviction recorded by the trial Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed a sum of money and issued a cheque in discharge of the debt, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. After legal proceedings, the lower Appellate Court affirmed the conviction. However, a compromise was reached between the parties, leading to the complainant admitting the factum of compromise. The compromise agreement was found to be genuine and free from undue influence, with both parties agreeing to compound the offence. The High Court, relying on precedents like Kaushalya Devi Massand v. Roopkishore Khore and Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal, exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401, Cr.P.C. to quash the conviction and sentence, allowing the revision petition subject to certain conditions, including a deposit to the State Legal Services Authority.

Issue 2: Compounding of the offence under Section 320(6), Cr.P.C. read with Section 482, Cr.P.C.

The parties in the case sought the Court's indulgence for compounding the offence under Section 320(6), Cr.P.C. read with Section 482, Cr.P.C. Both parties affirmed that the compromise was voluntary and witnessed by independent individuals. The Court emphasized the compensatory nature of dishonor of cheque offences, suggesting a preference for compensatory mechanisms over punitive measures. Citing the principles laid down in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal, the Court highlighted the importance of genuine and bona fide compromises in achieving justice and maintaining peace between parties. The Court, considering the everlasting benefits of the compromise and in line with the spirit of the Negotiable Instruments Act, allowed the compounding of the offence, quashing the lower court's judgment and conviction, subject to specified conditions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal intricacies involved in the revision petition against conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the subsequent compounding of the offence, providing a comprehensive understanding of the Court's decision-making process and legal reasoning.