2022 (1) TMI 706 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - It is the case of the petitioner that even though in Annexure- A4 order the petitioner was directed to remit the amount of fine in the trial court, the amount paid directly to the complainant who is the 2 nd respondent herein - HELD THAT - Admittedly, there is substantial compliance of the direction issued by this Court in Annexure-A4 order in as much as the total amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant and in fact the complainant has received the amount also. An affidavit endorsing the said fact was also placed before this Court by the 2 nd respondent. The court is directed below to make necessary entry in the fine register recording the factum of settlement between the parties, as if fine is realised and paid to the complainant - petition disposed off. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the court's direction regarding payment of fine in a criminal case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Dismissal of a petition by the trial court due to direct payment of fine to the complainant instead of remitting it to the trial court.
3. Challenge to the trial court's decision based on a precedent and the legality of direct payment to the complainant.
4. Compliance with court orders and the necessity of recording fine payment in the court register.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, challenged the trial court's decision convicting and sentencing them to pay a fine with a default imprisonment clause. The petitioner appealed and filed a Criminal Revision Petition, which modified the sentence to a fine payment within a specified period. The petitioner paid the entire fine directly to the complainant, leading to a dispute over compliance with the court's order to remit the amount in the trial court.

2. The trial court dismissed the petitioner's petition to close the case and recall a non-bailable warrant, citing non-compliance with the court's direction to remit the fine in court. The petitioner argued that the payment to the complainant fulfilled the obligation, relying on a judgment in a similar case. The 2nd respondent, the complainant, confirmed receiving the compensation and issued a receipt, supporting the petitioner's claim of fulfilling the payment obligation.

3. Referring to a previous case, the court examined the legality of direct payment to the complainant instead of depositing the fine in court. The court acknowledged the petitioner's compliance with the payment obligation and the complainant's receipt of the compensation. Relying on the precedent cited by the petitioner, the court set aside the trial court's order and directed the court to record the settlement between the parties in the fine register, considering the fine as paid to the complainant.

4. The court emphasized the importance of substantial compliance with court directions and ensuring that the settlement between the parties is duly recorded. By setting aside the trial court's order and directing the necessary entry in the fine register, the court resolved the issue of payment compliance and closed the case in the interest of justice.