2022 (6) TMI 554 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - compounding of its dues - compromise arrived inter-se parties - acquittal of the accused - heinous and serious offences - section 138 of NI Act - Section 320 of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - Since the petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court deems it fit to consider the present petition in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in NARINDER SINGH ORS. VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ANR 2015 (2) TMI 1042 - SUPREME COURT , whereby Hon'ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. Hon'ble Apex Court has returned the findings that power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case GIAN SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ANOTHER 2012 (9) TMI 1112 - SUPREME COURT has held that power of the High Court in quashing of the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power is distinct and different from the power of a Criminal Court for compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Even in the judgment passed in Narinder Singh's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its social impact and it cautioned the Courts not to exercise the power for quashing proceedings in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. Since the matter stands compromised between the parties, prayer made in the petition at hand can be accepted. In DAMODAR S. PRABHU VERSUS SAYED BABALAL H. 2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of conviction by the courts below. The present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 7/14.6.2019 and 11.3.2022, passed by the courts below are quashed and set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compounding of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Quashing of conviction and sentence based on a compromise between parties.
3. Application of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. Applicability of legal precedents and guidelines for compounding offences.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Compounding of Offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner sought to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which pertains to the dishonor of a cheque. The initial complaint was filed by the respondent-complainant, who alleged that the petitioner had issued a cheque worth Rs. 72,480, which was dishonored upon presentation. The trial court found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to four months of simple imprisonment and ordered compensation of Rs. 72,480. The petitioner later entered into a compromise with the complainant, paying the full compensation amount, and sought to compound the offence.

2. Quashing of Conviction and Sentence Based on Compromise:
The petitioner requested the quashing of the conviction and sentence based on the compromise reached with the complainant. The complainant confirmed the receipt of the full compensation amount and expressed no objection to the quashing of the conviction and sentence. The court considered the compromise agreement and the voluntary nature of the complainant's consent.

3. Application of Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
The court examined the use of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's guidelines in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, which distinguish the inherent power under Section 482 from the power to compound offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. The court noted that while the inherent power should be exercised sparingly and with caution, it could be used to quash proceedings in cases where parties have settled the matter, provided it serves the ends of justice or prevents abuse of the court's process.

4. Applicability of Legal Precedents and Guidelines for Compounding Offences:
The court referred to several legal precedents, including Narinder Singh and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, to outline the principles guiding the acceptance of settlements and the quashing of proceedings. It emphasized that such powers should not be exercised in cases involving heinous and serious offences but could be applied in cases with a predominantly civil character, such as commercial transactions. The court also cited Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., which allows for the compounding of offences under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act even after conviction.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that since the matter had been amicably settled between the parties, the offence could be compounded. Consequently, the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the lower courts were quashed, and the petitioner was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petition was disposed of, and any interim orders and bail bonds were vacated and discharged.