2022 (2) TMI 555 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - settlement arrived at between parties - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - The revision application is required to be allowed and the parties be permitted to compound the offence - it appears that the dispute is settled between the parties. The judgment and order passed by learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat as well as order dated 30.4.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 2018 by learned 17th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat stand quashed and set aside. The applicant-accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act except he is not convicted in connection with any other offence - the revision application is allowed. Learned advocate for the applicant requests to permit the applicant to withdraw the amount deposited by the applicant - Applicant is hereby permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by him before the trial Court.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Settlement between parties, Compounding of offence, Permission to withdraw deposited amount.

Analysis:
1. The applicant challenged the order of conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court. The respondent No. 2, through an affidavit, expressed settlement with the applicant and requested the court to quash the impugned judgments due to the settlement.

2. The respondent No. 2, in the affidavit, stated that the dispute was settled between them, and he did not wish to prosecute the matter further. Both parties' advocates confirmed the settlement, requesting the court to dispose of the revision application by quashing the impugned judgments.

3. The learned APP objected to the settlement, arguing that the conviction was rightly held based on evidence. However, the court referred to a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the importance of promoting banking operations' efficacy and credibility through the compounding of offences under Section 138 of the NI Act.

4. Applying the Supreme Court's decision to the present case, the court allowed the revision application, permitted the parties to compound the offence, and acquitted the applicant-accused of the charge under Section 138 of the NI Act. The court also directed the applicant to withdraw the deposited amount.

5. In conclusion, the court quashed the judgments of the trial and appellate courts, allowed the applicant to withdraw the deposited amount, and communicated the order to the concerned authorities. The settlement between the parties played a crucial role in resolving the matter and compounding the offence under the NI Act.