2022 (1) TMI 7 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - Compromise entered into between parties - Sections 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT - The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 02.06.2017 under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and was sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and had also been directed to pay compensation to the tune of ₹ 75,000/-. An appeal against the same was dismissed for want of prosecution by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. In the present Criminal Revision, an application has been moved for compounding of offence under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and affidavit of respondent No.1 has also been annexed. A perusal of the said affidavit would show that the complainant had submitted that the matter has been compromised and she has no objection in case, the petitioner is granted bail and the matter is closed. Both the counsels have jointly submitted that the said compromise is genuine and bona fide. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, judgment of conviction dated 02.06.2017 and order on quantum of sentence dated 03.06.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Assandh, as well as the judgment dated 03.03.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal are set aside and the present criminal revision petition is allowed in terms of the compromise and the same would be subject to the petitioner depositing an amount of ₹ 11,250/- within a period of one month from today with the High Court Lawyers' Welfare Fund. The criminal revision is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and order of sentence. Appeal dismissal for want of prosecution. Application for compounding the offence under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Judgment Analysis:

1. Challenge to Conviction and Sentence:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year with a compensation order of ?75,000. An appeal against this conviction was dismissed for want of prosecution. The present Criminal Revision challenges this judgment.

2. Application for Compounding of Offence:
An application under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed for compounding the offence. The complainant submitted an affidavit stating that the matter has been compromised, and she has no objection to the petitioner being granted bail and the case being closed. Both parties confirmed the genuineness of the compromise.

3. Legal Precedents and Compromise Validity:
The court referred to legal precedents, including Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal, to establish its jurisdiction to set aside a conviction based on a valid compromise. The court emphasized that the compromise in this case was genuine and valid, following the principles laid down in previous judgments.

4. Judicial Decision:
Considering the facts and circumstances, the court set aside the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Assandh, as well as the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. The Criminal Revision was allowed based on the compromise, subject to the petitioner depositing ?11,250 within one month with the High Court Lawyers' Welfare Fund.

5. Conditional Dismissal Clause:
The judgment clarified that failure to deposit the specified amount within the given timeframe would result in the dismissal of the Criminal Revision. All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of in light of this judgment.

This detailed analysis highlights the key issues addressed in the judgment, the legal principles applied, and the final decision rendered by the court based on the compromise between the parties.