9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 96 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of cheque due to insufficiency of funds - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a compensation of ₹ 2,70,000/- to the complainant - whether the Court in such like cases can set aside the judgments of conviction and sentence where the petitioner has been charged under Section 138 of the Act? Held that - Since, the petitioner has already paid the entire compensation amount, therefore, quashing of the complaint initiated at the instance of complainant/respondent No.1 would be a step towards securing the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court, especially, when the petitioner is facing pangs and suffered agony of protracted trial and thereafter appeal/revision for the last more than three years and has deposited the entire compensation amount of ₹ 2,70,000/-. This is a fit case to exercise the powers not only under Sections 397, 401 and Section 482 of the Code, but even under Section 147 of the Act - the impugned substantive sentence of simple imprisonment imposed in this case shall stand modified and substituted in lieu of the amount of compensation of ₹ 2,70,000/- that stands already paid by the petitioner - learned trial Court is also directed to release the amount of ₹ 27,000/- deposited in this case by the petitioner to complainant /respondent No.1-Bank as per procedure. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence. 3. Settlement between the parties and quashing of proceedings. 4. Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Issue 1: Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the petitioner issued a dishonored cheque for an overdue amount. The trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner, sentencing him to imprisonment and compensation. The petitioner appealed the conviction, leading to the current revision petition. Issue 2: Appeal against the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence The petitioner appealed the trial Magistrate's judgment before the Additional Sessions Judge, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the conviction and sentence, leading to the current proceedings. Issue 3: Settlement Between the Parties and Quashing of Proceedings During the hearing, it was revealed that the petitioner had settled the matter with the complainant by paying the entire compensation amount. Both parties agreed to the settlement, prompting the petitioner's counsel to request the release of the deposited amount and the quashing of the proceedings. Issue 4: Exercise of Inherent Powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Court deliberated on its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to accept settlements between parties and quash proceedings to prevent abuse of the legal process. Citing relevant Supreme Court judgments, the Court emphasized the importance of considering the nature of the offense and public interest in serious cases. The Court noted that it could close proceedings upon satisfaction that the compensation had been paid, even in the absence of the complainant. In conclusion, the Court exercised its powers under Sections 397, 401, and 482 of the Cr.P.C., as well as Section 147 of the Act, to modify the petitioner's sentence to the compensation amount already paid. The deposited amount was directed to be released to the complainant, and the revision petition was disposed of. The judgment highlighted the importance of settlements in appropriate cases and the Court's role in securing justice and preventing abuse of legal processes.
|
