9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 677 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - compounding of the offence - HELD THAT - In the case at hand, petitioner-accused has already paid the compensation amount to the respondent-complainant, as has been stated by him in his statement taken on record and as such, this court, in terms of S.147 of the Act and guidelines framed by Hon ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. 2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT , can proceed to compound the offence. This court finds no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the applicant/accused through instant application for compounding of the offence and same is allowed - Impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the learned Courts below are quashed and set aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Application allowed.
Issues Involved: Compounding of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, maintainability of review petition after dismissal of Special Leave Petition, power of the court to compound offences post-conviction.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Compounding of Offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: The applicant-accused filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, seeking the compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. The respondent-complainant acknowledged receiving the entire compensation amount as agreed upon in the compromise. The Court noted that the primary question was whether it could compound the offence after upholding the conviction and sentence. The Court referred to previous judgments, including those from the Hon'ble Apex Court, which allowed for the compounding of offences even after the accused had been convicted. The Court cited the case of K. Subramanian Vs. R. Rajathi, where the Supreme Court permitted the compounding of the offence post-conviction, emphasizing the provisions of Section 147 of the Act. 2. Maintainability of Review Petition after Dismissal of Special Leave Petition: The Court examined whether a review petition could be entertained after the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP). The applicant's SLP had been dismissed as withdrawn, and the Court cited the judgment in Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala, which held that the doctrine of merger does not apply in the case of dismissal of an SLP by a non-speaking order. The Court also referred to the judgment in Kanoria Industries Limited & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., which distinguished between dismissal of an SLP and its withdrawal, stating that withdrawal does not preclude the filing of a review petition. The Court concluded that the review petition was maintainable as the SLP had been dismissed as withdrawn, and the doctrine of merger did not apply. 3. Power of the Court to Compound Offences Post-Conviction: The Court reiterated its power to compound offences under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, even after the conviction of the accused. It referenced previous judgments, including those from the Rajasthan High Court and the Gujarat High Court, which supported the compounding of offences post-conviction. The Court emphasized the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., which allowed for the compounding of offences under Section 138 of the Act at any stage. Consequently, the Court found no impediment in accepting the application for compounding the offence, recalling its previous order, and quashing the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the lower courts. Conclusion: The Court allowed the application for compounding the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, recalling its previous order dated 12.03.2024. The judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the lower courts were quashed, and the petitioner-accused was acquitted of the offence. The Registry was directed to prepare and send the release warrants of the accused to the Superintendent of Jail, Nahan, forthwith. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
|
