2023 (10) TMI 313 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - insufficient funds - settlement of matter done between parties - compounding of offence - imposition of compounding fee - HELD THAT - Having taken note of the fact that the parties have settled the matter 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, has compromised the matter with the complainant, as per the compromise deed, dated 09.03.2023, prayer for compounding the offence can be accepted in terms of the aforesaid judgments passed 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 is quashed and set aside - the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Imposition of Compounding fee - HELD THAT - Undisputedly, the total amount of cheque is Rs.4,57,000/-, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a poor person and the imposition of compounding fee may be reduced - In case K. SUBRAMANIAN VERSUS R. RAJATHI REP. BY P.O.A.P. KALIAPPAN 2009 (11) TMI 1013 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon ble Apex Court had issued the guidelines with respect to the imposition of compounding fee held that 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. Bona fide litigants should of course contest the proceedings to their logical end. Therefore, taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court and the financial condition of the petitioner, as he is a poor person, since the competent Courts can reduce the compounding fee with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to deposit token compounding fee of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand), only with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla, within four weeks from today. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
- Application for compounding the offence under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 147 of the NI Act

Summary:
The petitioner, who was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed an appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence. The complainant alleged that the petitioner failed to repay a loan and issued a dishonored cheque. The trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to imprisonment and compensation. The appeal was dismissed, leading to the petitioner filing a petition seeking to set aside the judgments. During the proceedings, the parties reached a compromise, leading to an application for compounding the offence under Section 147 of the Act.

The Court considered the provisions of Section 147 of the Act and the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court regarding compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was noted that the petitioner had compromised with the complainant, and therefore, the Court accepted the prayer for compounding the offence. The judgments of conviction and sentence were quashed, and the petitioner was acquitted. The compromise deed formed a part of the judgment. The Court also considered the petitioner's financial condition and directed him to deposit a token compounding fee with the State Legal Services Authority.

In conclusion, the Court permitted the compounding of the offence, acquitted the petitioner, and directed the deposit of a token compounding fee based on the Supreme Court's guidelines and the petitioner's financial circumstances.