2023 (7) TMI 1106 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - during the pendency of the present petition, parties have settled their dispute - compounding of offence - waiver of compounding fee - HELD THAT - Hon ble The Supreme Court in the case of DAMODAR S. PRABHU VERSUS SAYED BABALAL H. 2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT had held that in case of dishonour of cheque, accused convicted, there is no stage prescribed for compounding of offence under the Act and it was observed that It is true that the application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made by the parties after the proceedings had been concluded before the Appellate Forum. However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under Section 138 even at the appellate stage of the proceedings. It was further observed that, Even though the imposition of costs by the competent court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. The competent Court can of course reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance. The petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer for waiving off the compounding fee, but considering the mitigating circumstances of the petitioner brought out by his learned counsel, the same is reduced in view of the afore-referred judgment and he is ordered to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- as costs, with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority on or before 30.07.2023. Revision petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the subsequent appeal and revision petition against the judgments passed by the trial and appellate courts.

Conviction and Sentencing:
The petitioner issued three cheques to the complainant to discharge his liability, but they were dishonored due to insufficient funds. A complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Act, leading to the petitioner's conviction and sentencing by the trial court. The appeal filed against this judgment was dismissed by the appellate court, prompting the present revision petition.

Compromise and Settlement:
During the pendency of the revision petition, the parties settled their dispute, with the complainant receiving the agreed settlement amount. Both parties agreed to compound the offence, and the complainant submitted an affidavit confirming the receipt of the settlement amount. The petitioner, being a poor individual, requested the waiver of the compounding fee due to his financial circumstances.

Legal Precedents and Court Decisions:
The judgment refers to various legal precedents, including decisions by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the compoundable nature of offences under Section 138 of the Act. It highlights that parties can compound the offence even at later stages of litigation, as seen in cases such as K.Subramanian vs. R.Rajathi and K.M. Ibrahim vs. K.P. Mohammed. The court, in line with these precedents, permitted the petitioner to compound the offence, reducing the compounding fee based on mitigating circumstances.

Final Decision:
Considering the settlement between the parties and the legal provisions allowing for compounding of the offence, the court accepted the compromise and acquitted the petitioner of the charges. The petitioner was ordered to deposit a reduced amount as costs, and the judgments of conviction and sentence were set aside. The revision petition was disposed of accordingly, with a directive for a compliance report to be submitted by the Haryana State Legal Services Authority.