2022 (3) TMI 550 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficient funds - compounding of the offence - compromise - amicable settlement between parties - HELD THAT - The record of the present case would clearly show that the compromise had been effected between the parties and the said compromise has been reiterated by both the counsel during the course of arguments. The matter seems to have been finally settled and the said compromise will bring peace and harmony between the petitioner and the respondent. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in RAM PARKASH AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2016 (1) TMI 1478 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , has allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. under similar circumstances holding that where not only the parties but their close relatives (including daughter and son-inlaw of respondent No.2) have also supported the amicable settlement, we are of the considered view that the negation of the compromise would disharmonize the relationship and cause a permanent rift amongst the family members who are living together as a joint family. Nonacceptance of the compromise would also lead to denial of complete justice which is the very essence of our justice delivery system. Hon'ble Supreme Court in DAMODAR S. PRABHU VERSUS SAYED BABALAL H. 2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT and thus, as per settled law, this Court has the power to set aside the judgment of conviction against the petitioner on the basis of a valid compromise. The compromise in the present case is genuine and valid. The present matter has been compromised and the compromise is genuine and bona fide, the present revision petition is allowed and impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 03.04.2017 as well as the impugned order dated 21.09.2019 are set aside in view of the compromise and the petitioner and respondent are permitted to compound the offence. The same is however, subject to the petitioner depositing 15% of the cheque amount i.e. ₹ 30,000/- with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority within a period of one month from today - the said amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, then the present petition would be deemed to have been dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentencing. Appeal dismissal. Compromise agreement authenticity and effect on legal proceedings.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns a criminal revision challenging a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the subsequent sentencing to rigorous imprisonment and compensation payment. The petitioner's appeal against this conviction was also dismissed. The respondent filed a complaint for dishonor of a cheque, leading to the legal proceedings. The Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and sentence. However, both parties later reached a compromise, which was deemed genuine and without influence. This compromise aimed to settle the monetary dispute, as evidenced by the legal notice, original cheque, and other documents presented in court.

The court considered past judgments where compromises during appellate stages led to quashing of criminal proceedings to secure justice. Notably, the court cited cases where similar compromises were accepted, leading to the quashing of FIRs and convictions. The court emphasized the importance of genuine compromises in maintaining peace between parties and ensuring complete justice. The court also highlighted its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings based on valid compromises, even after convictions.

Citing relevant legal precedents, the court acknowledged the power to set aside convictions based on genuine compromises. The court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the previous judgments and permitting the parties to compound the offense. However, the petitioner was directed to deposit 15% of the cheque amount with the State Legal Services Authority within a specified timeframe. Failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the petition. The judgment emphasized the importance of genuine compromises in resolving legal disputes and maintaining harmony between parties.

In conclusion, the court accepted the compromise agreement as genuine and valid, leading to the setting aside of previous judgments and allowing the parties to compound the offense. The judgment highlighted the significance of authentic compromises in legal proceedings and emphasized the court's power to secure justice through such agreements.