2023 (9) TMI 346 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - compounding of offences - petitioner-accused acquitted of the charge framed against her under Section 138 of the NI Act - HELD THAT - Having taken note of the fact that out of Rs.4, 00, 000/- which is the entire amount of compensation awarded by the learned Trial Court the complainant- respondent has already received Rs.3, 33, 000/- and balance amount has been deposited by the petitioner-accused before the learned Trial Court and the complainant has no objection in compounding the offence therefore this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the accused-petitioner for compounding of offence while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act as well as in terms of guidelines issued by the Hon ble Apex Court in DAMODAR S. PRABHU VERSUS SAYED BABALAL H. 2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has held since Section 147 was inserted by way of an amendment to a special law the same will override the effect of Section 320(9) of the CrPC especially keeping in mind that Section 147 carries a non obstante clause. In K. SUBRAMANIAN VERSUS R. RAJATHI REP. BY P.O.A.P. KALIAPPAN 2009 (11) TMI 1013 - SUPREME COURT it has been held by the Hon ble Apex Court that in view of the provisions contained in Section 147 of the Act read with Section 320 of Cr.P.C. compromise arrived at can be accepted even after recording of the judgment of conviction. Since in the instant case the petitioner-accused after being convicted under Section 138 of the Act out of awarded compensation amount of Rs.4, 00, 000/- has already paid Rs.3, 33, 000/- to the complainant-respondent and deposited balance amount of Rs.67, 000/- before the learned Trial Court which the complainant-respondent may get released prayer for compounding the offence can be accepted in terms of the aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon ble Apex Court - in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court the parties are permitted to get the matter compounded in light of the compromise arrived inter se them. The present matter is ordered to be compounded and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Court No. 7 Shimla H.P. in Case No. 37-3 of 2014 and affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Shimla H.P. vide judgment dated 30.04.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 4-S/10 of 2019 are quashed and set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against her under Section 138 of the Act. Bail bonds if any stand discharged. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, based on a petition filed by the accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court.

Facts:
The petitioner-accused borrowed a total amount of Rs.3,35,550/- from the complainant-respondent through various cheques but failed to honor the payment, leading to the complainant filing a complaint under Sections 138 of the NI Act. The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced her to imprisonment and compensation. The accused appealed against this decision, seeking acquittal.

Judgment:
During the proceedings, the complainant stated that he received a significant portion of the compensation amount and had no objection to quashing the conviction and sentence against the accused. The Court, after examining the records and considering the complainant's statement, accepted the prayer for compounding the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

Legal Interpretation:
The Court referred to Section 147 of the NI Act, which allows for the compounding of offences under the Act, emphasizing that this provision overrides the general rule under Section 320 of the CrPC. The Court also cited previous judgments by the Supreme Court, highlighting the acceptance of compromise even after the recording of a judgment of conviction.

Compounding Fee:
In line with guidelines provided by the Supreme Court, the Court directed the accused, a poor lady, to deposit a token compounding fee of Rs.5000/- with the District Legal Services Authority. The Court stressed the importance of encouraging early compounding to reduce the burden on the judicial system and the parties involved.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the compounding of the offence, quashed the conviction and sentence against the accused, and directed the release of the deposited amount to the complainant. The accused was instructed to pay the token compounding fee within a specified timeframe. The petition was disposed of accordingly, bringing the legal proceedings to a close.