9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 782 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - compounding of offences - amicable settlement of disputes - Sections 138 and 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - In the facts of the instant case and the statutory provisions and the mandate of the Hon ble Supreme Court, in cases of Kanchan Mehta 2017 (10) TMI 218 - SUPREME COURT and P. Mohanraj 2021 (3) TMI 94 - SUPREME COURT , once the proceedings under Section 138 have been held to be proceedings in the form of a civil sheep in a criminal wolf s clothing, therefore, once the petitioner-accused has amicably decided to settle/liquidate/discharge his liability, though, the transaction-proceedings have a tinge of criminal liability, then, on settling the entire liability in view of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the compounding of offences, on discharge of liability, appears to be genuine, which is certainly is a step towards securing the ends of justice. It is relevant to observe that once the Respondent-Complainant who had initiated the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has received his cake then, no useful purpose will be achieved in continuing the criminal proceedings, against the accused-petitioner who has discharged/liquidated his liability. Notably, the object of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is that in case the accused under the aforesaid enactment remits/discharges or liquidates his liability then such a person can be absolved of the criminal action-prosecution by permitting compounding of offence in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act. Moreover, once the petitioner-accused has discharged/liquidated his liability towards Respondent- Complainant, therefore, the continuance of criminal proceedings will not serve any purpose. The compounding of an offence would enable both the parties to lead life of respect and dignity in the society. Once, no dispute remains between the parties to the lis, then obviously the law cannot be so harsh so as to stand as a wall between the parties notwithstanding the amicable settlement inter se the parties - The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. This Court on the basis of the material placed on record is satisfied that the petitioner-accused Sunil Kumar and Respondent No.1-Complainant have settled the dispute and Respondent No.1-Complainant has no grudges against the petitioner accused, who has liquidated/discharged/remitted his liability in favour of the complainant. In these circumstances, allowing the judicial prosecution to continue will result in disturbing the peace and harmony but will also create or give rebirth to bitterness and enmity amongst them. Moreover, the ends of justice would be satisfied in case, the parties herein are allowed to compromise. Since, the petitioner-accused Sunil Kumar is suffering custody in Sub Jail, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. ; therefore, the Respondents-State Authorities are directed to release the petitioner-accused Sunil Kumar , if not required in any other case. Release warrants be prepared and consequential action be taken expeditiously in accordance with law - Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. 2. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned judgment. 3. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for amicable settlement. 4. Criminal Revision Petition u/s 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence. Summary of Judgment: 1. Application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for Condonation of Delay: The petitioner-accused filed an application (Cr.MP(M) No. 628 of 2024) u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of a delay of 1 year 7 months and 26 days in filing a Criminal Revision Petition. The delay was attributed to financial stringency. The court found the reasons bona fide and unintentional. Respondent No.1 did not object to the application, and Respondent No.2 did not file any reply or objection. The application was allowed, and the delay was condoned. 2. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for Quashing the Impugned Judgment: The petitioner-accused filed an application (Cr.MP No. 1173 of 2024) u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned judgment dated 27.11.2018 passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court on 08.07.2022, citing that the matter had been settled amicably with Respondent No.1. The court confirmed the amicable resolution and allowed the application. 3. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for Amicable Settlement: Respondent No.1 filed two applications (Cr.MP No. 1153 of 2024) u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, confirming the receipt of the entire payment and stating that the matter had been amicably settled. The court acknowledged the settlement and quashed the judgments passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court. 4. Criminal Revision Petition u/s 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. Challenging the Conviction and Sentence: The petitioner-accused filed a Criminal Revision Petition (Cr. Revision No. 204 of 2024) u/s 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.11.2018 by the Trial Court and affirmed on 08.07.2022 by the Appellate Court. The court noted that the petitioner had settled the matter with Respondent No.1 and received the entire cheque amount. Consequently, the judgments were quashed, and the petitioner was acquitted of the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Additional Observations: The court emphasized that the object of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to allow compounding of offences upon settlement of liability. Continuation of criminal proceedings after settlement would serve no purpose and would cause undue harassment. The court directed the release of the petitioner-accused from custody, provided he was not required in any other case. Conclusion: The court allowed the applications for condonation of delay and quashing of the impugned judgments, acknowledging the amicable settlement between the parties. The petitioner-accused was acquitted of the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the court ordered his release from custody.
|
