Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2023 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 345 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour 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 29.09.2023, 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.1,60,000/-, 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 vs. R. Rajathi 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.8,000/- i.e., 5% of the cheque amount, only with the State Legal Services Authority, Shimla, H.P., within four weeks from today. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
The judgment involves a petition filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The main issue revolves around the compounding of the offense after a settlement between the accused and the complainant. Summary: The accused, Deepak Verma, failed to transfer ownership of a bus to the complainant despite receiving the full payment. He issued a check that bounced due to insufficient funds, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Trial Court convicted him, sentencing him to six months' imprisonment and a compensation amount. The accused appealed, but the Lower Appellate Court upheld the conviction. Subsequently, a joint application was filed by the accused and the complainant seeking to compound the offense. The complainant expressed no objection to quashing the conviction and acquitting the accused. During the proceedings, the complainant confirmed the settlement and expressed willingness to compound the offense. The Court considered the settlement and the complainant's stance, citing relevant legal provisions from the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. It noted the enabling provision under Section 147 of the NI Act for compounding offenses and referred to precedent cases where compromises were accepted even after the recording of a conviction. The Court accepted the settlement and allowed the compounding of the offense, setting aside the previous judgments of conviction and sentence. It also directed the accused to deposit a token compounding fee of Rs. 8,000 with the State Legal Services Authority due to his financial condition. The judgment was in line with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court regarding the imposition of compounding fees. Ultimately, the petition was disposed of, and the accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the NI Act.
|