9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 853 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - compounding of offence punishable u/s 138 of NI Act - whether after upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned court below, can this Court proceed to compound the offence or not? - doctrine of merger - HELD THAT - This Court in GULAB SINGH SHANDIL VERSUS VIDYA SAGAR SHARMA 2017 (3) TMI 1891 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT , while relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as other Constitutional Courts has already held that court, while exercising power under Section 147 of Act can proceed to compound offence even in those cases, where accused stands convicted. Since in the case at hand, it is not in dispute that after passing of judgment dated 15.03.2022, parties have entered into the compromise, whereby entire amount of compensation awarded by learned court below has been paid by the petitioner-accused to the respondent-complainant, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act can proceed to compound the offence. This court finds no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioneraccused through instant petition for compounding of the offence and same is allowed - Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Power of the court to compound the offence after upholding the conviction and sentence. 3. Legal precedents supporting the compounding of the offence post-conviction. 4. Maintainability of review petitions after the dismissal of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs). Detailed Analysis: 1. Compounding of the Offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: The petitioner-accused filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, seeking the compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. The respondent-complainant, through their counsel, acknowledged that the entire amount of compensation had been received, and both parties had entered into a compromise. This led to the prayer for compounding the offence being considered. 2. Power of the Court to Compound the Offence After Upholding the Conviction and Sentence: The court examined whether it could compound the offence after upholding the conviction and sentence. Referring to its previous judgment in Cr.MP No. 1197 of 2017 in Cr. Revision No. 394 of 2015, the court noted that it has the power to compound the offence under Section 147 of the Act, even in cases where the accused stands convicted. The court cited the case of Gulab Singh v. Vidya Sagar Sharma, where it was held that the court could review/recall its own order/judgment to compound the offence. 3. Legal Precedents Supporting the Compounding of the Offence Post-Conviction: The court referenced several legal precedents to support its decision. It cited the Rajasthan High Court's judgment in Naresh Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, where the court allowed the compounding of the offence after the conviction was upheld, based on a compromise between the parties. The court also referred to the Gujarat High Court's judgment and the Supreme Court's decision in K. Subramanian v. R. Rajathi, which permitted the compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Act after recording a conviction. 4. Maintainability of Review Petitions After the Dismissal of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs): The court discussed the maintainability of review petitions post the dismissal of SLPs. It cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, which clarified that the dismissal of an SLP does not result in the merger of the High Court's order with the Supreme Court's order. Therefore, a review petition can be filed even after the dismissal of an SLP. The court also referenced the Delhi High Court's judgment in Kanoria Industries Limited v. Union of India, which supported the view that a review petition is maintainable after the withdrawal of an SLP. Conclusion: Given the amicable settlement between the parties and the legal precedents, the court found no impediment in accepting the petition for compounding the offence. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, recalled the order dated 15.03.2022, compounded the matter, and quashed the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the lower courts. The accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, and the trial court was directed to release the deposited sum in favor of the petitioner-accused. The petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
|
