2024 (5) TMI 983 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - dispute has been settled amicably - respondent has submitted that he has no objection if petitioner is acquitted from the charge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - 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 application for compounding is made Criminal Revision No.3198/2021 before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.' 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 3% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs. 900/- by way of cost to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority Indore - Subject to payment of cost at the rate of 3% of the cheque amount with the State Legal Services Authority Indore, within seven days from the date of this order, the applicant be acquitted and released from the jail thereon, if he is in jail. The revision stands disposed of.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a revision filed against a Sessions Court's decision in a criminal appeal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where the applicant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and compensation.

Details of the Judgment:

1. Issue 1 - Conviction and Sentence:
The revision was filed against the Sessions Court's decision affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, involving a cheque amount of Rs.30,000.

2. Issue 2 - Settlement and Compromise:
Both parties submitted that the dispute was settled amicably, and the respondent had no objection to the petitioner being acquitted from the charge under Section 138. The law laid down by the apex court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. was cited regarding guidelines for compounding offenses in cheque bouncing cases.

3. Issue 3 - Guidelines for Compounding:
The judgment referenced guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding offenses under Section 138 of the Act, emphasizing the need to discourage litigants from delaying the composition of the offense.

4. Issue 4 - Payment of Costs:
As the parties had settled the dispute and entered into a compromise, the applicant was directed to pay 3% of the cheque amount as costs to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority within seven days for acquittal. Failure to pay would result in the original sentence and compensation being enforced.

5. Issue 5 - Disposal of Revision:
The revision was disposed of, subject to the payment of costs, and any pending applications were closed. The judgment highlighted the power of the court to frame guidelines in cases of legislative vacuum, ensuring justice and discouraging unnecessary litigation.

6. Separate Judgment:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.

This summary outlines the key issues addressed in the judgment, including the conviction, settlement, guidelines for compounding offenses, payment of costs, and the disposal of the revision, emphasizing the importance of timely resolution and adherence to legal procedures.