9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Petitioner convicted u/s 138 of N.I. Act seeks to quash sentence citing subsequent settlement.
Summary: 1. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced u/s 138 of the N.I. Act, with the sentence being imprisonment till rising of court and a compensation amount of Rs.75,000. The petitioner now seeks to quash the sentence based on a subsequent settlement with the complainant, invoking the jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner and the complainant confirm that the entire compensation amount has been paid, as per the decision in Girish v. Muthoot Capital Services. The only remaining aspect is the substantive sentence of imprisonment. The court clarifies that not all post-revision compositions can be accepted under Section 482 Cr.P.C., citing Sabu George v. Home Secretary as an exceptional case. 3. The court emphasizes that the power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in this case based on the Sabu George precedent. It is the responsibility of the petitioner and the complainant to demonstrate to the Magistrate that the compensation has been fully paid, as per the original direction. If this is confirmed, there will be no need for executing the default sentence. 4. The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed, with the petitioner being liable only for the substantive sentence if the compensation has been discharged. The court directs to hand over the order.
|
