9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 549 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - permission for condonation of delay in compounding of offences - HELD THAT - Taking into account the fact that the parties have agreed to end the proceedings by way of compromise and the opposite party no.2 has already received the amount of cheque and he does not want to pursue the proceedings against the revisionist, this Court deems it appropriate to compound the offence on the basis of compromise deed dated 13.11.2020 entered into between the parties. However, in terms of the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the revisionist has not appeared before the Court and has not taken effective steps to compound the offence at initial stages, in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, this court deems it appropriate to permit the compounding of offence subject to payment of ₹ 10,000/- as cost/interest to the opposite party no.2 to be paid by the revisionist within a period of two weeks from today. Taking into account the fact that the revisionist has caused undue delay in making endevour for compounding the offence in terms of guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in DAMODAR S. PRABHU VERSUS SAYED BABALAL H. 2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT , the revisionist is directed to pay a cost of 15% of the cheque amount to the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court, Allahabad within a period of three weeks from today. Revision allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Compounding of the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. Legal precedents and guidelines for compounding offences at various stages. 4. Payment of costs and interest as per Supreme Court guidelines. Detailed Analysis: 1. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: The revisionist was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a cheque that was dishonored. The trial court sentenced the revisionist to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of ?3,60,000/-, with an additional six months of imprisonment in case of default. The appellate court upheld this conviction and sentence. 2. Compounding of the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: The revisionist and the opposite party reached a compromise, and the opposite party received the cheque amount of ?2,00,000/-. Both parties agreed to end the criminal proceedings based on this settlement. The court noted that offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act could be compounded at any stage of the proceedings, citing the Supreme Court's decision in K. M. Ibrahim vs. K.P. Mohammad and another, which allows for compounding even at the appellate stage. 3. Legal precedents and guidelines for compounding offences at various stages: The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including: - K. M. Ibrahim vs. K.P. Mohammad: Established that once parties are allowed to compound an offence, the conviction should be set aside. - Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H.: Highlighted the importance of early compounding to avoid protracted litigation and provided guidelines for compounding offences at different stages of litigation. - Meters and Instruments Private Limited vs. Kanchan Mehta: Emphasized that offences under Section 138 are primarily civil wrongs and should be tried summarily, with the court having the discretion to close proceedings if the cheque amount and costs are paid. 4. Payment of costs and interest as per Supreme Court guidelines: Following the guidelines from Damodar S. Prabhu, the court imposed costs on the revisionist for not seeking compounding at an earlier stage. The revisionist was directed to pay ?10,000/- as cost/interest to the opposite party within two weeks and 15% of the cheque amount to the High Court Legal Services Committee within three weeks. Upon compliance, the conviction and sentence would be set aside. Conclusion: The court allowed the revision, permitting the compounding of the offence based on the compromise deed, subject to the payment of stipulated costs. The judgment and sentence were set aside contingent on the revisionist fulfilling the payment conditions within the specified period.
|
