9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 403 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - initiation of Criminal Case - Whether a criminal case initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, after ending in conviction and reach its logical end, shall it be reopened and compounded under Section 147 of Negotiable Instrument Act by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C., overriding the embargo under Section 362 of Cr.P.C.? - Compounding of Offences - HELD THAT - A reading of Sections 4 and 5 of Cr.P.C. clearly shows that enquiry, investigation and trial of the offence(s), whether under the Indian Penal Code or any other Special Act, the procedure(s) under the Cr.P.C. have to be followed, unless Special Act provides the procedure(s) to be followed thereof. In this case, for trial of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, except certain specific deviations made under Sections 140, 142 and 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the provisions under the Cr.P.C. have to be followed. The complaint, appeal and revision petitions are to be filed under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. Sub-section (9) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. provides a specific bar for compounding an offence, except where it is otherwise provided. Further, under Section 320 (5), (6), (7) and (9) of Cr.P.C., there is an embargo for compounding an offence once there is conviction. This is the view of the Supreme Court as well. The substantive law settled in the context of the offences under the IPC, is applicable to the offences triable under the N.I. Act and other special Legislations.Compounding of offences is permissible even at all appellate stages with permission or during the pendency of the revision under Section 401 of the Act. Therefore, not only the offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, but the other offence(s) under the Special Act cannot be compounded, except under Section 320 Cr.P.C.Sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were inserted by Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988, with the object of providing a speedy remedy apart from inculcating faith in the efficacy of Banking operations and credibility in business transactions relating to the Negotiable Instruments. Thus, it is an essential facet for the economic development of a country - the offence(s) which are not provided under Section 320 Cr.P.C., cannot be compounded and if it is allowed to be compounded, it will have the effect of acquittal by setting aside the conviction and sentence on the basis of the subsequent compromise entered into between the parties. The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable before this Court for reviewing or recalling a judgment, which was already passed by this Court by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the respondent/accused, by the trial Court. Such power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are boundless - the respondent in this case pleaded not guilty before the trial court, appellate Court at the first instance, as well as this Court in the appeal against acquittal, but such a plea was over-turned and he was convicted for having committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While so, the present petition seeking to accept the compromise entered into between the parties, is nothing short of an abuse of process of law. Thus, when once a Criminal Case registered under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, had handed down the conviction either in the Appeal or in the Revision by the High Court, the question of compounding of the offence(s) thereafter under Section 147 of the N.I. Act by invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not permissible - petition rejected.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for compounding offence under Section 147 of the N.I. Act after conviction. 2. Applicability of Section 362 Cr.P.C. in preventing the alteration of a judgment after its pronouncement. 3. The interplay between Section 147 of the N.I. Act and Section 320 Cr.P.C. regarding compounding of offences. 4. The scope of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for Compounding Offence under Section 147 of the N.I. Act after Conviction: The petitioner sought to compound the offence under Section 147 of the N.I. Act after the conviction was upheld by the High Court. The petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., invoking the inherent powers of the High Court to secure the ends of justice. The petitioner argued that the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is a civil wrong and can be compounded at any stage, even after conviction, citing various Supreme Court judgments supporting the compounding of offences to promote better relations and reduce judicial burden. 2. Applicability of Section 362 Cr.P.C. in Preventing the Alteration of a Judgment after Its Pronouncement: Section 362 Cr.P.C. prohibits any court from altering or reviewing its judgment after it has been signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. The High Court emphasized that no court has the power to alter a judgment after it is pronounced, particularly in criminal jurisprudence, except for clerical or arithmetical errors. The court held that allowing compounding after the conviction would amount to setting aside the judgment, which is not permissible under Section 362 Cr.P.C. 3. The Interplay between Section 147 of the N.I. Act and Section 320 Cr.P.C. Regarding Compounding of Offences: Section 147 of the N.I. Act allows for the compounding of offences under the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued that Section 147, being a special statute, overrides the provisions of the Cr.P.C. regarding compounding. However, the court noted that while Section 147 allows for compounding, it should be consistent with the principles laid down under Section 320 Cr.P.C., which provides a specific bar for compounding offences once there is a conviction, except with the permission of the court. 4. The Scope of Inherent Powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The petitioner argued that the High Court has wide inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice, including the power to compound offences. The court acknowledged the wide powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but emphasized that these powers must be exercised with caution and are subject to the limitations imposed by Section 362 Cr.P.C. The court held that exercising inherent powers to compound an offence after a conviction has been confirmed would lead to setting aside the conviction, which is not permissible under Section 362 Cr.P.C. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that once a conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been confirmed, the offence cannot be compounded by invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. due to the embargo under Section 362 Cr.P.C. The inherent powers of the High Court cannot be used to defeat the specific procedure prescribed under the Code or to overcome the specific bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petition for compounding the offence after the conviction was rejected.
|
