2023 (10) TMI 1209 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - amicable settlement of dispute - acquittal of the accused - HELD THAT - Since the parties are entering into compromise at the stage of revision, therefore, law laid down by the apex Court in the case of DAMODAR S. PRABHU VERSUS SAYED BABALAL H. 2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT will be applicable in this case where it was held that If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the Court deems fit. Thus, considering the fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into compromise before this Court in the revision and decided to avoid further litigation, hence, the applicant is liable to pay 2% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.8,480/- by way of cost to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority Indore - Subject to payment of cost at the rate of 2% of the cheque amount with the State Legal Services Authority Indore, within a period of 15 days from today, the applicant be released from the jail. Sentence awarded to the applicant is hereby modified by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where the applicant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and compensation. The revision was filed against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which affirmed the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class.

Details of the Judgment:

1. Compromise Deed Submission:
The revision was filed along with a compromise deed, indicating that both parties entered into the agreement willingly without any undue influence. The complainant's counsel confirmed that the dispute was settled amicably, with the applicant paying the full amount as per the compromise before the trial court. The request was made to reduce the appellant's sentence to the time already served.

2. Applicability of Legal Precedent:
The court considered the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., emphasizing the importance of timely compounding in cheque bouncing cases. The court highlighted the need for deterrence against delayed composition of offenses to prevent burdening the legal system and ensure effective justice for complainants.

3. Cost Imposition and Sentence Modification:
Based on the Supreme Court guidelines, the court directed the applicant to pay 2% of the cheque amount as costs to the State Legal Services Authority in Indore. Upon payment within 15 days, the applicant would be released from jail, with the sentence reduced to time already served. Failure to pay the specified amount would result in the applicant serving the original sentence and compensation as awarded by the trial court.

4. Withdrawal of Deposited Amount:
The complainant was permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner before the lower court. The court disposed of any pending Interlocutory Applications (I.As) related to the case.

Conclusion:
The revision was disposed of with the specified conditions, ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court guidelines on cost imposition and timely settlement of disputes in cheque bouncing cases.