2022 (1) TMI 753 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficient funds - Compounding of offences - seeking preponing the date of hearing of main case from 10.01.2022 to today itself - HELD THAT - It is apparent that both the contesting parties are ad idem that the compromise has been duly 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 peace and harmony between the parties and thus, a prayer has been made before this 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. The petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 30,000/- being 15% of the cheque amount with the High Court Lawyers' Welfare Fund within a period of 6 weeks from today. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not deposit the said amount of ₹ 30,000/- within the aforesaid period then the present criminal revision would be deemed to have been dismissed. Since, the main case has been decided, application bearing CRM-36741-2021 for suspension of sentence of applicant-petitioner is rendered infructuous and is disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentencing, Compromise between parties during pendency of the case, Validity of the compromise, Role of State in compounding the offence, Legal implications of the compromise on the judgment.

Issue 1: Challenge to conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentencing:

The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of ?10,000 for dishonoring a cheque. The conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner filed a Criminal Revision challenging these judgments. The facts involved the dishonor of a cheque amounting to ?2,00,000, leading to the legal proceedings.

Issue 2: Compromise between parties during pendency of the case:

During the pendency of the case, the parties reached a compromise. The complainant acknowledged receiving the due amount and agreed to make a statement favoring the petitioner for acquittal. The compromise was submitted to the court, indicating an amicable settlement between the parties involved. Both parties confirmed the genuineness of the compromise without any coercion.

Issue 3: Validity of the compromise:

The court examined the compromise and found it to be genuine and bona fide. Both parties agreed to the terms without any undue influence, leading to the resolution of the dispute. The court noted that the compromise would promote peace and harmony between the parties and decided to allow the compounding of the offence under Section 147 of the Act.

Issue 4: Role of State in compounding the offence:

The State, being involved in the case due to the nature of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, stated that it had no objection to the matter being disposed of as the offence was compoundable. The State recognized the settlement between the parties and acknowledged that it had no active role to play in the compromised situation.

Issue 5: Legal implications of the compromise on the judgment:

Citing relevant legal precedents, the court held that the compromise was valid and in line with the spirit of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Relying on previous judgments, the court set aside the convictions and sentences against the petitioner based on the genuine compromise between the parties. The petitioner was acquitted of the charges, subject to depositing 15% of the cheque amount with the High Court Lawyers' Welfare Fund.

In conclusion, the court allowed the Criminal Revision, set aside the previous judgments, and acquitted the petitioner based on the valid compromise reached between the parties. The petitioner was directed to deposit a specified amount within a set period. The court also disposed of related applications and pronounced the final order in the matter.