9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 665 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - funds insufficient - compounding of offence - amicable settlement arrived at between the parties - HELD THAT - Having taken note of the fact that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties under One Time Settlement Scheme and the complainant-Bank has also issued No Dues Certificate in favour of the petitioner and the account stands closed, 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 A bare reading of this provision would lead us to the inference that offences punishable under laws other than the Indian Penal Code also cannot be compounded. However, 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 amicably settled the matter with the complainant-Bank under One Time Settlement Scheme, prayer for compounding the offence can be accepted in terms of the aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon ble Apex Court. Accordingly, the present matter is ordered to be compounded - 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.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) only with the H.P. 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 judgment convicting the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The main issue is whether the accused should be allowed to compound the offence after settling the matter with the complainant-Bank under the One Time Settlement Scheme. Summary: The petitioner obtained a loan from a bank and issued a cheque to repay the amount, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The bank filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Trial Court convicted the accused and imposed a sentence. The accused appealed, seeking acquittal. During the petition, the accused filed an application seeking permission to compound the offence under Section 147 of the NI Act. The respondent bank informed the Court that the matter had been settled under the One Time Settlement Scheme, and a No Dues Certificate had been issued. The bank had no objection to compounding the offence and releasing the deposited amount in favor of the accused. After examining the records and considering the settlement between the parties, the Court accepted the prayer for compounding the offence. The Court referred to relevant judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, highlighting the provisions of Section 147 of the NI Act and Section 320 of the CrPC regarding compounding of offences. It was noted that in similar cases, compromises could be accepted even after the recording of the judgment of conviction. The Court, therefore, quashed the impugned judgment of conviction, acquitted the accused, and directed the release of the deposited amount in favor of the accused. Considering the financial condition of the accused, the Court directed the payment of a token compounding fee of Rs.10,000 to the State Legal Services Authority. The petition was disposed of accordingly, and any pending applications were also addressed.
|
