2022 (6) TMI 156 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - compromise arrived at between the parties - acquittal of the accused - framing of charges - section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - Having taken note of the fact that both the parties have compromised the matter and in terms of the compromise substantial amount of Rs.2,50,000/- , out of Rs.3,50,000/- has been paid to the complainant/respondent and petitioner-accused has given undertaking to make the remaining payment within a period of one week, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-accused for compounding the offence while exercising power under section 147 of the Act as well as in terms of the law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. 2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT , whereby it has been categorically held that Court exercising power under Section 147 of the Act can proceed to compound the offences even in those cases where accused stands convicted. The instant matter is ordered to be compounded and judgment dated 21.03.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, District are quashed and set-aside. The petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment affirming conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge to a judgment affirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant alleged that the accused had approached him for a friendly loan, issued a cheque that was later dishonored due to insufficient funds, and failed to make the payment despite receiving a statutory notice. The trial court found the accused guilty based on the evidence presented by both parties.

The petitioner-accused, aggrieved by the trial court's decision, filed an appeal which was subsequently dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner then approached the High Court seeking acquittal and challenging the lower court's judgment. The High Court, in an interim order, directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the compensation amount and furnish bail bonds within a specified period.

During the proceedings, both parties informed the court of their intention to settle the dispute amicably. The petitioner's counsel stated that a settlement amount of Rs. 3,50,000 had been agreed upon, with Rs. 2,50,000 already paid to the complainant and the remaining Rs. 1,00,000 to be paid in installments within a year. The complainant confirmed the settlement and expressed no objection to compounding the offense under Section 147 of the Act.

Both parties appeared before the court, reaffirming the settlement terms. The court, considering the compromise reached and the substantial payment made, accepted the prayer for compounding the offense. Relying on legal precedent, the court quashed the judgments of the lower courts, acquitted the petitioner-accused of the charge under Section 138 of the Act, and discharged the bail bonds.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the petition and related applications, vacating any interim orders. The case highlights the possibility of amicable settlements in legal disputes and the court's power to compound offenses even after conviction, as established in relevant legal precedents.