2021 (1) TMI 1197 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - as per the terms of the compromise the complainant/appellant was required to withdraw the civil suit filed before the trial Court, but he has failed to fulfill his obligation - HELD THAT - It is the duty of the appellate Court to look into the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence relied on by the parties is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. The law clearly expects the appellate Court to dispose of the appeal on merits and not merely perusing the reasoning of the trial Court in the judgment, but by cross checking the reasoning and material on record. In the instant case strangely the accused has been convicted without there being sufficient evidence and only on the basis of the joint memo filed by the parties. Admittedly as per the terms of the joint memo the complainant/appellant has received the entire cheque amount of ₹ 90,000/-. When there was satisfaction of the entire claim by the accused, the complainant/appellant was duty bound to withdraw the civil suit filed before the trial Court as agreed by him in the joint memo. The complainant has failed to fulfill his obligation and has managed to get a decree for recovery of a sum of ₹ 21,000/-. Under these circumstances if these criminal cases are remanded back to the trial Court for fresh trial as ordered by the Sessions Court it would be nothing but abuse of process of law. The accused is acquitted for the charges leveled against her for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against remanding criminal cases for fresh trial on merits.
2. Justification of setting aside orders in the criminal cases.
3. Interpretation of Cr.P.C. provisions in the context of the case.
4. Duty of appellate court to examine evidence independently.
5. Consideration of satisfaction of claim and fulfillment of obligations in compromise.

Analysis:

1. The High Court heard appeals challenging the remand orders of two criminal cases for fresh trial on merits. The cases arose from a compromise between the complainant and the accused, where the accused paid the complainant the due amount. However, the complainant failed to withdraw a civil suit as agreed upon in the compromise. The Sessions Court remanded the cases, leading to the present appeals.

2. The key issue was whether the remand orders were justified. The complainant received the full amount due, but failed to withdraw the civil suit as per the compromise terms. The appellate court considered the provisions of Cr.P.C., especially Section 386, which empowers the court to reverse orders and make independent decisions based on evidence.

3. Section 386 of Cr.P.C. outlines the powers of the appellate court, emphasizing the duty to examine evidence thoroughly and reach an independent conclusion. The court noted that the accused had satisfied the claim, and the complainant's failure to withdraw the civil suit led to an undeserved decree. The court highlighted that remanding the cases for fresh trial would be an abuse of the legal process.

4. The court emphasized the duty of the appellate court to analyze evidence independently and not merely rely on the trial court's reasoning. In this case, the accused had fulfilled the obligations of the compromise, and remanding the cases would be unjust. The court concluded that the appeals should be dismissed, and the accused acquitted of the charges under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. The judgment appreciated the assistance of the learned Amicus Curiae and directed the Registry to pay honorarium to both representatives. The decision highlighted the importance of upholding the integrity of legal processes and ensuring justice based on a thorough examination of facts and evidence.

By considering the satisfaction of the claim, the duty of the appellate court to assess evidence independently, and the implications of the compromise terms, the High Court reached a decision to dismiss the appeals and acquit the accused. The judgment underscored the significance of upholding legal principles and preventing the abuse of legal procedures.