2018 (10) TMI 107 - HC - Indian Laws

Acceptance of Settlement entered into between parties - acquittal of accused - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Held that - This is not a case wherein offence for which the petitioner has been charged can strictly be termed to be an offence against the State. On the other hand, continuation of criminal case against the petitioner would put the petitioner to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him in case the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence are not set aside. This court is not powerless in such situation and adequate powers have been conferred upon it not only under Sections 397 read with Section 401 or Section 482 Cr.P.C. but also under Section 147 of the Act for accepting the settlement entered into between the parties and to quash the proceedings arising out of the proceedings, which have consequently culminated into a settlement. This power has been conferred to subserve the ends of justice or/and to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In the present case, the parties have already reached an amicable settlement and at best it was the complainant/respondent who could be said to be affected and aggrieved party, but herein even the affected and aggrieved party i.e. complainant/respondent is not interested to pursue the complaint and does not want to hold the petitioner responsible for the offence under the Act. Therefore, quashing of the complaint initiated at the instance of the respondent/complainant would be a step towards securing the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court. The petitioner is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Act - compensation amount which has been deposited by the petitioner before the learned trial court shall be released in favour of the respondent - revision petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petition against judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, dismissal of appeal, settlement between parties, exercise of powers under Sections 397, 401, 482 of Cr.P.C. and Section 147 of the Act, quashing of criminal proceedings, application of legal principles from Narinder Singh's case.

Analysis:
The High Court heard a petition against the judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. However, both parties had amicably settled the matter, with the complainant not wishing to pursue the case further. The Court observed that the offence charged was not strictly against the State, and continuing the case would cause oppression and prejudice to the petitioner. The Court noted its powers under Sections 397, 401, and 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 147 of the Act to accept settlements and quash proceedings to prevent abuse of the court process.

The Court referred to the legal principles outlined in Narinder Singh's case, emphasizing that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with caution. It highlighted that for offences of a civil nature arising from commercial transactions or family disputes, quashing may be appropriate when parties have resolved all disputes. The Court considered the possibility of conviction, oppression to the accused, and the impact on the relationship between parties. It differentiated between heinous offences against society and private offences, indicating that settlements could be accepted in cases of a predominantly civil nature.

In this case, as the parties had settled and the complainant did not wish to pursue the complaint, the Court found it suitable to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the court process. The Court concluded that the facts did not fall within the exceptions outlined in Narinder Singh's case, justifying the exercise of powers under Sections 397, 401, 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 147 of the Act. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. The compensation amount deposited by the petitioner was to be released in favor of the respondent, and the revision petition was disposed of accordingly.