9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 940 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - dispute involved in all the three revision petitions has been amicably resolved and the due amounts have been paid to the complainant - compromise has been effected between the parties without any pressure, undue influence or misrepresentation, 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 with respect to the fact 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 petitions deserve to be allowed. Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Dishonor of cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Conviction and sentencing by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh. 3. Dismissal of criminal appeals by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. 4. Settlement agreement through Mediation and Conciliation Centre. 5. Compounding of offenses and setting aside of judgments based on the settlement. Detailed Analysis: 1. Dishonor of Cheques Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Complaint No. 1527 of 2016 was filed by Balvir Singh Multani against M/s. Shiva International and Shyam Sunder Bansal for the dishonor of cheque No. 018873 dated 07.12.2015 for ?17,325/-. Complaint No. 1526 of 2016 was filed by Sonia Multani against M/s. Balaji Enterprises and Hitesh Bansal for the dishonor of cheque No. 020510 dated 07.12.2015 for ?17,325/-. Complaint No. 383 of 2016 was filed by Sonia Multani against M/s. Balaji Enterprises and Hitesh Bansal for the dishonor of cheques No. 020508 and 020509 dated 07.11.2015 and 17.12.2015, respectively, amounting to ?37,125/- each. 2. Conviction and Sentencing by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh: In all three complaints, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and sentenced Shyam Sunder Bansal and Hitesh Bansal to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and directed them to pay compensation equivalent to the cheque amounts. 3. Dismissal of Criminal Appeals by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh: The criminal appeals filed by the accused against the judgments of conviction were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide judgments dated 08.01.2019 and 18.01.2019, respectively. 4. Settlement Agreement Through Mediation and Conciliation Centre: During the pendency of the revision petitions, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of the High Court, where a settlement/agreement was reached between the parties. The settlement involved the payment of the dishonored cheque amounts and an additional ?5,000/- per case, amounting to a total of ?15,000/-, to the complainants. The settlement was confirmed to be voluntary and free from any undue influence, and both parties agreed to abide by the terms and conditions. 5. Compounding of Offenses and Setting Aside of Judgments Based on the Settlement: The court observed that the compromise would maintain peace and harmony between the parties. In view of the settlement, the court allowed the revision petitions and set aside the judgments of conviction and sentence dated 21.07.2017 and the judgments in appeal dated 08.01.2019. The petitioners were acquitted subject to depositing 15% of the dishonored cheque amounts with the U.T. Legal Services Authority within two weeks, in accordance with the judgment in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. The court emphasized that the compromise was genuine, bonafide, and free from any undue influence, and thus, the revision petitions were allowed. The petitioners were directed to deposit ?16,335/- within two weeks, failing which the revision petitions would be deemed dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of in view of the judgment.
|
