9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 450 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - compounding of offence - consensus ad idem - terms of compromise complied with or not - Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 320 (6) Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - It is apparent that both the contesting parties are ad idem that the compromise has been effected between the parties without any pressure, threat or undue influence and the terms of the said compromise have been duly complied with. The compromise would go a long way in maintaining the peace and harmony between the parties and thus, a prayer has been made to the Court for compounding the offence in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 320 (6) Cr.P.C. Since the offence relating to dishonour of cheque has a compensatory profile and is required to have precedence over punitive mechanism, therefore, the present revision petition deserves to be allowed. It is also relevant to state that the petitioner has already undergone custody of 02 months and 20 days out of the total sentence of 01 year and 06 months of rigorous imprisonment - the judgment of conviction and order of quantum of sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, respectively, are set aside. The petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 60,000/-, being 15% of the cheque amount, with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Appeal challenging the conviction and sentence. 3. Application for preponing the hearing date. 4. Settlement and compromise between the parties. 5. Validity and genuineness of the compromise. 6. Legal implications and consequences of the compromise. Issue 1: Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for issuing a dishonored cheque. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months and pay compensation of ?6,00,000, including the cheque amount and interest. The Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, upheld the conviction and sentence in an appeal. Issue 2: Appeal challenging the conviction and sentence: The appeal challenging the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. The petitioner's conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 were maintained. Issue 3: Application for preponing the hearing date: An application was filed to prepon the hearing date of the main case due to the petitioner's conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. The application was granted, and the hearing date was preponed to 25.10.2021. Issue 4: Settlement and compromise between the parties: The parties reached a settlement and compromise, as evidenced by a Panchayati settlement and an affidavit. The complainant stated that no legal action was desired against the petitioner, and both parties agreed not to initiate any legal action against each other in the future. Issue 5: Validity and genuineness of the compromise: Both parties confirmed that the compromise was genuine, bona fide, and executed without coercion. The compromise was deemed to be in accordance with the law and was intended to maintain peace and harmony between the parties. Issue 6: Legal implications and consequences of the compromise: The Court considered the compromise as a valid tool to resolve the matter. Citing relevant legal precedents, the Court had the power to set aside the judgment of conviction based on a valid compromise. The petitioner was directed to deposit 15% of the cheque amount with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority within three weeks. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the lower courts. The petitioner was directed to deposit a specified amount within a stipulated time frame. The Court emphasized the importance of genuine compromises in legal proceedings and highlighted the legal implications and consequences of such settlements.
|
